Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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: 0.008942 seconds.