Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: You are too kind | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:15 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
| In reply to: re: You are too kind - ryhog 07:53 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
|
|
|
| If you were to hear my full thoughts on the play, I think you would see that I'm being quite generous and respectful in the words I used. From a technical standpoint, it truly is barely a play, in terms of how it handles story, action, and architecture. The physical production and the music are doing all the heavy lifting on this one, and people seem to be leaving genially satisfied. Still, I can't help but notice that half of the positive reviews on Showscore say it's kind of boring. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: You are too kind | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:53 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
| In reply to: re: You are too kind - Singapore/Fling 11:15 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
|
|
|
| generous vis-a-vis your full thoughts, sure, but not fair and not accurate. Not technically a play? Seriously? I'd love to hear that explained. Make sure to link that rulebook. :-) | |
| reply to this message |
| re: You are too kind | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 02:10 am EST 01/11/18 | |
| In reply to: re: You are too kind - ryhog 11:53 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
|
|
|
| You're right that there's no rule book to what a play is or isn't. There is, though, craft and technical elements, and it takes great skill to tell a story coherently, particularly when you're looking solely at what's on the page, and not what a production wills into being. I didn't say it wasn't technically a play. You're misquoting me. I said that technically it's barely,/i> a play. There is a crucial difference. Van Kampen does manage to string together a series of scenes with a modicum logical coherence. She doesn't quite find an overarching drama that tells a singular story (partly because she doesn't know the characters very well), but she does drop small dramas into her scenes in a way that give it a sense of movement and cause & effect. In this way, she has met the barest criteria for writing a play. Like a jukebox musical, the text mostly exists as a delivery method for production numbers, but it is still enough to be a play. It's just that it's the playwriting equivalent of a sand castle - the kind that are just hills built by hand - and it's being shown on Broadway, where one expects soaring glass and steel condos and the occasional Zaha Hadid masterwork. Fortunately, the play's physical production is sumptuous, which I think is why the set gets the most prominent pull quote outside of the theater. In the same way that your work in producing and commercial theater economics is built upon a great study and a great skill, so is my work in play development and play analysis. There are criteria by which the writing of a play can be assessed. Those critera can be finely calibrated, but they can also be quite broad - if you were to explain to someone the point at which a play stops being a play and starts being dance or performance art, you would be using many of the same concepts to describe what makes a play a play. My impression from some of your writing on this board is that you don't believe that these diagnostic tools and structures exist, but they do, and they are the tools used by everyone who tells a story on stage. As a play is just a text, many underwhelming texts can become great shows when other elements of theater making deliver a compelling experience. The showmanship of "Farinelli" is enough to elevate the piece into something that is satisfying for many, but that's a credit to scenic, music, and all of those candles, as well as Rylance, who does as well as anyone can when they don't have a character to play. Since you liked the play, can you share what story you took from it? What about the play felt complete to you? I welcome your disagreement, but hopefully we can disagree through the play itself. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You are too kind | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:36 am EST 01/11/18 | |
| In reply to: re: You are too kind - Singapore/Fling 02:10 am EST 01/11/18 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for writing more. First of all, as I wrote early on (I think I saw it in the first week of previews), while I was greatly entertained by the show, I did not think it was a great play. (I am not sure I would say I "liked" in much more than the Facebook sense, though, as I say, I was well entertained and not bored.) Second, I very much believe in the diagnostic tools, but I also think that's what they are: things that can be used by those creating theatre, but not intended to shackle them or, most importantly, those consuming it. They may help tell stories, but I don't think we want to be telling (to pick a simple example) Richard Foreman or perhaps Beckett, that what they are writing are "barely plays." I've used this comment before, but I think it is apt here, that Paula Vogel has said that in teaching playwriting, she remains humbled by the notion that had someone turned in Hamlet, she would likely have given it a "D." (or something similar) Moving on, I don't think the playwright is required to tell a singular story to have more than "barely a play," but I have a fairly clear sense of the story being told (bipolar king, concerned wife seeking a "cure," brings that cure prompting the king to come to life and re-position so they can commune with nature (with backstory involving the courtiers) and, I assume we can agree, an unsatisfying ending.) I think if we start dismissing plays with unsatisfying endings we will have eliminated enough plays to prevent many theatres from getting a season up. I have no problem with your criticisms or analysis whether I agree or not; what triggered me was the dismissiveness: I think it is insulting to compare this to a (typical) jukebox musical. Also, you originally were pretty disparaging about Rylance, which you seem to have backed away from (no complaints here). I've gotten into this sort of discussion before (most often relating to lyrics I think) but I do think it is important in any art form to distinguish between what we are taught in school (or otherwise) about tools used to create, and how those tools are or are not employed. We have far more well-educated playwrights following what they were taught and writing lousy plays, and we have great playwrights who famously eschewed what they were taught to go on to become geniuses. (And yes, we also have both currents flowing in opposition to that, once again demonstrating that there are no rules. :-) ) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You are too kind | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 09:21 pm EST 01/12/18 | |
| In reply to: re: You are too kind - ryhog 11:36 am EST 01/11/18 | |
|
|
|
| I'm only dismissive of Rylance to the extent that I don't think he's giving us anything new in this play. Much like Bertie Carvel in "Ink", he's dipping into his bag of skills (or tricks) to cobble together a character where there is little on the page. It's the first time I've seen Rylance where nothing surprised me. I don't dismiss the play for it's unsatisfying ending, mainly because the lack of an ending stems from the lack of a meaningful beginning or middle. I do dismiss it for leaving (spoilers, if anyone is reading this) the king's death offstage, just as it leaves the attraction between Farinelli and the queen entirely offstage until the moment they suddenly kiss. There is no depth of character, and I think that we get the plot we do because it is baldly signposted. What most intrigued me, though, is your sense that it's unfair to call it a jukebox show, which to me is the least controversial thing I wrote :). The play essentially lurches from song to song (and I should note here that they added three songs for Broadway), and the entire dramatic engine of the play (to the extent that one exists) is about getting us to a new song. Even the rave reviews have centered around hearing the songs (or watching Rylance hear the songs), and all of the best stagecraft is built around the songs. Much like in a jukebox show, the characters are thin, and the historical information is told in a perfunctory and often tonally uneven style. For me, calling it a jukebox show is a descriptor rather than an insult, but then I don't mind a jukebox show, so long as they have a strong sense of action. Having rules around plays is always a bit of a dicey proposition, and people who work in literary often live in fear of not getting a play right - I almost certainly would have passed on "The Wolves". But there is a difference between people who are playing with form and those who are using an old form poorly. There's nothing in what van Kampen is doing that is experimental; she's attempting a linear, psychologically-based play, and her actual text fails to do much more than supply the basic sketch of the plot. She's working in a well-worn form, so we have a much easier time evaluating the success of her attempt. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You are too kind | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:15 pm EST 01/12/18 | |
| In reply to: re: You are too kind - Singapore/Fling 09:21 pm EST 01/12/18 | |
|
|
|
| There are only a fixed number of times we can recycle this discussion without wearing it out, especially considering that I never intended to wind up defending a play I liked as an entertainment but found "not great." So you thought it was less not great than I did. In fact you didn't think it was great or even good at all. Fine. A few parting comments (and feel free to add yours of course): 1. There are lots of actors who, at times (or more often), seem to be digging into a bag of tricks and yet (I venture to say) you haven't rejected all of them on that basis. 2. Re the kiss: I think this is an example of a point that can't bear the weight you're assigning to it. The king is suffering from a mental disorder. What would you have a kiss mean? What do you know of Gertrude's affection for Claudius? Seriously, if you want to play this game, let's play it with Hamlet. 3. I take your point about experimenting with form etc. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.016622 seconds.