I Have an Urge

To start writing again.

I am looking at a nice, long break from acting. I have nothing lined up as of this moment, and trips planned for April and May. My hope is that I can go back into rehearsals at the end of May, and have a show for the Summer.

( None-too-subtle subtext here...If you have an audition for a show in that general slot...shoot me a line.)

Part of that time off is going to be pointed to other creative work. Obviously, my Hayoth music project continues to develop, but I am also looking to get back into playwriting. It's been a long time since I've completed even a short play, and even longer since anything was even remotely developed or produced. Neon was a long time ago, and the western adaptation that I hammered out on spec seems like years ago.

I think it's time to start it up again.

I have an idea, a trilogy of subject-connected plays about the comic book industry. I have a pretty good idea of what each will be about, and have done some preliminary research. Research coupled with my own knowledge, of course...but the first play, in particular, there is a scene that I want to be accurate. The first is a larger story, but the second two will be more intimate and personal.

I think the form is so wonderful, and I want to channel my passion into something creative, and the series idea that I worked on with Zach Bosteel just kind of petered out after one zero issue. I have no animosity about that, Zach and I are still good friends. It's just a busy world, and why draw for free when there's paid work available.

Anyway...

This is really to just publicly about what I am aiming at. A lot of my friends know about this idea, and have reacted positively, but I needed somethign to hold myself accountable with.

This blog post is it.

Is There Anything More Painful?

I learned this week that there is nothing more painful to read than a screwball comedy/farce that...just isn't funny. The writer needs to keep amping it up, and amping it up, because it's a farce, that's part of the deal. Once the jokes stop hitting, or worse, if they never start, it becomes a nightmare. It's like being stuck in a stopped elevator with Gilbert Gottfried.

It just keeps braying and braying, and you know the playwright must think this is funny. The set-ups make it clear they've been exposed to a Marx Brothers movie. Yet, the lack of cleverness and wit in the dialogue suggests that they didn't actually see it, but had it described to them by...someone like an economics teacher.

**SIGH**

Makes me want to pull my hair out.

I also learned that...trying to apply a style of writing associated with a certain prose writer to dramatic scripting is, in many cases, doomed to failure. Especially if the style you've chosen to emulate is...rather wordy. I'm willing to READ a speech that takes five sentences to say something that could be said in one, but I can't imagine LISTENING to it.

Yes, yes...Shakespeare. We all love Shakespeare.

You. Are. Not. Shakespeare.

Shakespeare was also an incredibly clever user of the type of stage language that was commonplace for his time. Ol' Will wasn't sitting around thinking "Screw Marlowe and his realistic patter, I'm gonna fancy this up!!!"

For one, the point gets lost in your attempts to be "lyrical." I can re-read a passage in a book that maybe I didn't quite glom onto the first time...You get no second chance on stage. The moment is past, and you're on to the next scene.

For two, TALKING about something isn't anywhere near as dramatic as watching somebody DO IT. Watching somebody talk about the implications of what some other character just talked about, even less so. Especially when you decide all your characters spend their time talking about what's going on as if it's a lab experiment they're watching. If your characters show no investment in the plot, other than as an intellectual puzzle, it's really unlikely that I, as a reader or audience, will ever give a Rocket J. Squirrel about it, or them.

Look, there are no rules in theatre. There is a writer out there that can make anything work, and work well...

Well, not an unfunny farce, that's just...DID YOU REALLY THINK THAT WAS FUNNY?!?!? Seriously, look me in the eyes and tell me you thought that was funny...Hmmm?...Yeah, I didn't think so.

Yet, again, and I've written about this before, TELL A STORY. Find an emotional hook and play it out. Let that guide you to the style you want to employ. Let the story tell you want it wants, because then the style you've chosen won't be working against you. It'll be a choice ingrained in the dramatic thrust of what you're trying to get across. If you're choosing something, on a technical level, because it'll be "challenging" or "impressive," stop...and ask if it supports the story you're telling. If it supports the emotional hook you have into the story.

That's where the answer is.

And...I cannot stress this enough....If you're gonna write a farce, make sure it's actually funny.

Why Do You Insist There's a Difference?

So, via another blog I was exposed to this:

Why Can't Playwrights Feel Free to be Political?

Which, I'm going to speak frankly here, I found to be one of the most annoying pieces of self-serving tripe I've seen in a while. Now, I've not read or seen Ugly, and I am not familiar with Emma Adams as a playwright, so I'm not going to speak on the quality of her writing. Except in the case of this blog. It reads like a playwright wanting to mention her own production as many times as possible in conjunction with a Athol Fugard.

Way to go, Emma.

It's also yet another damn example of pushing this idea that there's some impenetrable wall between "entertaining" and "making a statement." It's a falsehood. There's nothing in the world keeping you, as a playwright, from writing a compelling, entertaining work that actually has something to say about the world, politically or otherwise. Nothing except you as a playwright. You can write any story in the world, in the universe even, and you can give it any meaning you want to with your pen/typewriter/word processor. You're the playwright, damn it! You're God of this world you've created!

If I could speak to Ms. Adams, I'd simply say that by even chewing over this "division" she sees, she's failed. By acknowledging it, she's become a slave to it. A story is a story is a story. Story is what engages people, emotion is what engages an audience, and that's what lets you make whatever point you want.*

If you want to make a political statement?...Start with people.

Let me use a movie as an example. The Hurt Locker was, hands down, the best movie made about the Iraq War. The movie made me think about the political implications, the people of Iraq, and the American soldiers over there. Fact is, NONE of that is vocally dealt with on screen. It's all subtext. What screenwriter Mark Boal and director Kathryn Bigelow did was focus on the people involved, their story, and how it affected them.

They made the political personal, through that it became emotionally engaging, and when you are emotionally engaged, you're entertained. You're invested in the story being told. You want to know how it ends, you're dying to know how it ends. No, it's not dancing girls and crappy musical numbers, but that's not the end-all be-all of "entertainment." (Frankly, it's pretty much anti-entertainment, as far as I'm concerned) It's only people trying to make the same, insipid argument Ms. Adams is who think so.

...And if you think a long, impassioned monologue about how horrible life is in Afganistan after the Taliban is making it personal...You. Are. Wrong. Unless maybe you can get Sir Ian McKellan to play the role.

I'm far more taken with what Anthony Neilson has to say about theatre, political or otherwise:

Don't Be So Boring

I've linked to that before, but, frankly, it's still relevant. Your job is to create a compelling evening of theatre. Make people care about what's happening on your stage. Make them CARE. That's what "entertainment" is. If it can be thought-provoking, too, great, but I'll always believe the shortest path to the soul is the heart, and not the mind.

*I want to state again, I know nothing about Ugly, as a play. It may avoid all the pitfalls I've seen be so damn common in "political" theatre. This, well, let's call it what it is, rant is simply about what she wrote for the Guardian.