Altering a playwright's intentions

[Spikesgirl]

Originally Posted by Van

Well... Guess what it wasn't the Smoking that everyone's talking about, read this.
http://www.oregonlive.com/performanc...ent_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]

Originally Posted by Spikesgirl

...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]

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]

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]

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]

[QUOTE=Logos;88094]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 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 think any play, if justified and uneffective to the dialog, can have its setting changed. Or at least aspects of its setting - it would be hard to do too much with "End Game" or "Waiting for who care" without effecting the very nature of the intent. I've seen Shakespeare done in the Wild West, in Tahiti, you name it, but the play's intent still comes through. I love to see a designer approach a play with a totally new concept and, perhaps, a new depth of understanding of the playwright's intent.

###

Occasionally ego tramples all over ART.

###

Amen to that, brother!


Char5lie

Yes, and no lectures about how to do the quote thing - I'm stretching my knowledge as it is...

[Grog12]

Originally Posted by Van

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Grog12

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.

Originally Posted by Grog12

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.

Originally Posted by Grog12

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]

Originally Posted by Grog12

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?

###

Some audience members would and if you put something in the program in the director's notes, then it would have an impact upon the audience members that actually read them.

###


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?

###

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