At the risk of this sounding as odd as it actually is, I'm a freelance writer who periodically writes magazine articles about people and events, which in turn requires calling people on the telephone (as a stranger) and asking them questions.
I am also a person who doesn't really like calling up strangers on the telephone and asking them questions. It almost always turns out just fine, and productive. It's the act of picking up that phone that bothers me, until I actually do it.
Today was one of those days that the end result was just delightful. I am working on a piece about Piedmont Opera's upcoming production of "The Light in the Piazza." Earlier this week, I chatted on the phone with the author of the original novella, from 1960, on which the musical was based. Who set the hometown of the family in the story, for reasons all her own, in Winston-Salem, N.C., which of course makes the musical a perfect choice for Piedmont Opera based on setting alone. (The story's action takes place in Italy, however.)
Today, I got not only to chat with the artistic director and resident conductor, Jamie Allbritten (he's currently in Colorado, however), but with Adam Guettel, the musical's composer, who was kind enough to give me time to talk about how he found the story and made it into a six-Tony-award-winner of the 2005 Broadway season. For a smalltown resident in N.C., it's just not every day I get to do that. And how wonderful is it to get to write about the theater as part of my paid work? Among other things, I've been able to do a three-part article on NCSA's "West Side Story" production in Winston-Salem Monthly, and more recently, a Triad Stage profile of "Bloody Blackbeard" in Greensboro Monthly.
It's totally excellent, that's what it is!
The only downside to this whole experience is that Piedmont Opera did not consult with me when scheduling this production, and the three dates in mid-October fall right in the middle of the time Kathy and I will be out of the country. Darn it! Though I will probably make up for it by seeing a Samuel Beckett play in Dublin, so that should work out as a fair compromise.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Learning by playreading
Given some of the past stories, it was with at least a little bit of trepidation that I signed on as one of a group of volunteers who undertake reading, and then advising, the Kernersville Little Theatre board concerning plays worthy of the theatre group's consideration. But thus far, it has been an enlightening and educational experience.
As has been noted earlier in this blog, Kathy and I are "active" playgoers, so yes, we do see quite a few plays on stage. But the interesting thing for me about the KLT playreading assignments is finding one's way to plays hitherto unknown to me. A good example is "Dinner With Friends," a script that won the 2000 Pulitzer Prize -- perhaps a year or two before I was paying as much attention to theater as nowadays, but still, I suspect I should have heard of it. It's making the rounds of the committee right now, though my personal opinion holds that it is not a KLT type of show. Nevertheless, I liked it very much and would enjoy seeing a production of it somewhere, some day, in the right hands.
Equally, some works that are not (IMHO) destined for Broadway greatness are entertaining to me and, by extension, the average current-day KLT audience member. Some are older (Headin' for the Hills, "a hillbilly comedy," dates to about 1950 but still has a humor I think our audience would "get," along with accents they would accept versus, apparently, British accents) and some are newer, but that's OK, too.
We are not destined to agree in all cases, either. One member saw Neil Simon's "Dinner Party" as a good opportunity for us, not perhaps his greatest comedy, but certainly adequate. I on the other hand saw its original production on Broadway, in the hands of name actors such as John Ritter and Henry Winkler, and thought it was flat and not really all that good. Was it just that production? Or would KLT founder on the same problems that the pros faced? Again, it's a matter of opinion. I'd be wary of it; others may well feel differently.
Choosing plays that will hopefully be successful in production takes a group effort, and compromise. We may not always get it right, but I feel this group has the best interests of the overall organization in mind at all times. Naturally, we try to be realistic about the interests of the audience as well.
And it's a learning experience, too!
As has been noted earlier in this blog, Kathy and I are "active" playgoers, so yes, we do see quite a few plays on stage. But the interesting thing for me about the KLT playreading assignments is finding one's way to plays hitherto unknown to me. A good example is "Dinner With Friends," a script that won the 2000 Pulitzer Prize -- perhaps a year or two before I was paying as much attention to theater as nowadays, but still, I suspect I should have heard of it. It's making the rounds of the committee right now, though my personal opinion holds that it is not a KLT type of show. Nevertheless, I liked it very much and would enjoy seeing a production of it somewhere, some day, in the right hands.
Equally, some works that are not (IMHO) destined for Broadway greatness are entertaining to me and, by extension, the average current-day KLT audience member. Some are older (Headin' for the Hills, "a hillbilly comedy," dates to about 1950 but still has a humor I think our audience would "get," along with accents they would accept versus, apparently, British accents) and some are newer, but that's OK, too.
We are not destined to agree in all cases, either. One member saw Neil Simon's "Dinner Party" as a good opportunity for us, not perhaps his greatest comedy, but certainly adequate. I on the other hand saw its original production on Broadway, in the hands of name actors such as John Ritter and Henry Winkler, and thought it was flat and not really all that good. Was it just that production? Or would KLT founder on the same problems that the pros faced? Again, it's a matter of opinion. I'd be wary of it; others may well feel differently.
Choosing plays that will hopefully be successful in production takes a group effort, and compromise. We may not always get it right, but I feel this group has the best interests of the overall organization in mind at all times. Naturally, we try to be realistic about the interests of the audience as well.
And it's a learning experience, too!
Monday, July 21, 2008
Interesting copyright questions
I haven't yet reported that we went to see "Don't Cry for Me, Margaret Mitchell" at Stage Two of Barter Theatre, up in Abingdon, VA, a couple of weeks back. Although the story of the play sounded extremely similar to "Moonlight and Magnolias," which others had heard of and was apparently read by the KLT playreading group, to my surprise it is by two authors with names that don't match the playwright's name for "Moonlight ..."
I'm not quite sure how a copyrighted play can be written about a very specific set of events -- three people locking themselves in an office for a week to churn out a workable script for the movie, "Gone With the Wind" -- and then another play be written about the same set of events that somehow doesn't impact with the copyright on the first play. I suspect that, since only a few of the facts of that week are actually known in the public domain, perhaps the two scripts are measurably different in interpretation of what went on in that office. But still .....
Anyway, we saw this show and found it entertaining, amusing and relatively short, following the noticeable trend in some current scripts (such as "Doubt" and "Blackbird") to run 90 minutes or just under that, even with an intermission. Responding, one assumes, to the limited attention span of modern Americans.
Some day it would be interesting to read the two scripts back to back and see if they are really all that different, or one is funnier/more successful than the other, or what. But at least now I have seen one version of that story, which certainly is funny at points!
I'm not quite sure how a copyrighted play can be written about a very specific set of events -- three people locking themselves in an office for a week to churn out a workable script for the movie, "Gone With the Wind" -- and then another play be written about the same set of events that somehow doesn't impact with the copyright on the first play. I suspect that, since only a few of the facts of that week are actually known in the public domain, perhaps the two scripts are measurably different in interpretation of what went on in that office. But still .....
Anyway, we saw this show and found it entertaining, amusing and relatively short, following the noticeable trend in some current scripts (such as "Doubt" and "Blackbird") to run 90 minutes or just under that, even with an intermission. Responding, one assumes, to the limited attention span of modern Americans.
Some day it would be interesting to read the two scripts back to back and see if they are really all that different, or one is funnier/more successful than the other, or what. But at least now I have seen one version of that story, which certainly is funny at points!
Monday, July 14, 2008
Rejecting and rejection
I caught an interesting bit of a piece Ken Ashford put up on his blog ("The Seventh Sense")recently that was notes from "rehearsing a musical" (in my opinion, those notes applied to more than just musicals!!). It basically states: A director is someone who should be 100% open to listening to comments from everyone and anyone -- and should be fully prepared to reject 80% of those comments afterwards.
It's my humble opinion that there should be a corollary to this law for playwrights. While many of the thoughts and comments I've received from individuals on my first two plays have been interesting, useful or at least have caused reflection and reconsideration, that is certainly not universally true. At the bottom line, creative works are the author's vision, and you have to try to a certain extent to continue to be truthful to that vision, but yet with as much objectivity as you can possibly muster.
This is a long lead-in to reporting that my hopes for "All About Faith" with a theater company in Washington, D.C. did not bear fruit. There were just too many differences between the reader's viewpoint on the play and my own conception, and belief, about the play, what it is about, where it is set and so on. So along with accepting that it did not entirely work for that individual, I still had to reject that particular set of commentaries and continue to believe in the play as it is written.
We'll see whether that holds up in practice! If I hear the same comments over and over again, I'll have to reconsider my stand.
Nevertheless, I have had many a year of rejection of articles, stories and novel-length works -- and in many cases, at least the articles and stories eventually found homes with someone who read the piece a different way. It's not the first, and probably far from the last, time for someone to say "no" to a work of mine.
So now the script is with two other theater companies, both in N.C., for a look, and I have some feelers out to other places. So far. It won't do any good sitting in a pile of scripts in my office or as a file on my computer. I have faith that "Faith" will come home to a stage somewhere, somehow, some time.
Meanwhile, the ticking clock on notification, one way or another, of the "Conversations in a Cafe" grant request is ... two and one half months. Tick tick tick.
It's my humble opinion that there should be a corollary to this law for playwrights. While many of the thoughts and comments I've received from individuals on my first two plays have been interesting, useful or at least have caused reflection and reconsideration, that is certainly not universally true. At the bottom line, creative works are the author's vision, and you have to try to a certain extent to continue to be truthful to that vision, but yet with as much objectivity as you can possibly muster.
This is a long lead-in to reporting that my hopes for "All About Faith" with a theater company in Washington, D.C. did not bear fruit. There were just too many differences between the reader's viewpoint on the play and my own conception, and belief, about the play, what it is about, where it is set and so on. So along with accepting that it did not entirely work for that individual, I still had to reject that particular set of commentaries and continue to believe in the play as it is written.
We'll see whether that holds up in practice! If I hear the same comments over and over again, I'll have to reconsider my stand.
Nevertheless, I have had many a year of rejection of articles, stories and novel-length works -- and in many cases, at least the articles and stories eventually found homes with someone who read the piece a different way. It's not the first, and probably far from the last, time for someone to say "no" to a work of mine.
So now the script is with two other theater companies, both in N.C., for a look, and I have some feelers out to other places. So far. It won't do any good sitting in a pile of scripts in my office or as a file on my computer. I have faith that "Faith" will come home to a stage somewhere, somehow, some time.
Meanwhile, the ticking clock on notification, one way or another, of the "Conversations in a Cafe" grant request is ... two and one half months. Tick tick tick.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
More playgoing reports
Kathy and I completed our round of the 25 Ten-Minute Plays at the Source Festival on Sunday night with the longest of the three rounds, Group C (it had nine plays; the other two had eight each; and it had one of the longest-not-really-10-minute offerings). While we enjoyed most of them, we felt that the A and B groups overall were stronger. But the acting continued to be outstanding. It was quite an event, and we were pleased to have made the effort. We also caught dinner beforehand with Andy and Sarah, who were just back from a wedding gathering in New Jersey. Fun!
Monday was spent driving to Pittsburgh and chatting the evening away with my mother and brother; most of Tuesday was spent with Mom, and then Bob joined us again for dinner Tuesday night. Wednesday was on the road to Abingdon, then we caught "Don't Cry for Me, Margaret Mitchell," a comedy, at Barter Theatre last night. More fun! Oddly enough, though the story line sounds extremely similar, it does not seem to be the same play as "Moonlight and Magnolias." Intriguing. Anyway, we enjoyed it. Then, this morning (Thursday), we made our winding way across Highway 58 in Virginia and then down into Ashe County. Lovely weather here today!
Monday was spent driving to Pittsburgh and chatting the evening away with my mother and brother; most of Tuesday was spent with Mom, and then Bob joined us again for dinner Tuesday night. Wednesday was on the road to Abingdon, then we caught "Don't Cry for Me, Margaret Mitchell," a comedy, at Barter Theatre last night. More fun! Oddly enough, though the story line sounds extremely similar, it does not seem to be the same play as "Moonlight and Magnolias." Intriguing. Anyway, we enjoyed it. Then, this morning (Thursday), we made our winding way across Highway 58 in Virginia and then down into Ashe County. Lovely weather here today!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
