and longo and whoever else. ask us all stuff.
let's converse.

I just met someone who does this for a living.

Can you give me an example of what they do, and
how important they are?

----------------------------


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.



"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop"

1. on a new production, a dramaturg's job might be to help the playwright craft the structure of their play. in this scenario, a dramaturg is basically a sounding board for the playwright, asking them questions about the goals they're trying to accomplish and the stories they're trying to tell. it's not a co-writer (the dramaturg doesn't actually write anything, nor should they say things like "i think this character should say this"), it's not a director (who is concerned with getting the show on its feet) -- it's a play development consultant.

2. the more common role a dramaturg plays is to do research about the world of the play for usage by the creative team and/or the audience. dramaturgical notes might appear in the program or on a display outside the theater. let's see you're going to see, let's say, DOUBT at a regional theater. they might have notes about the playwright, about catholic school sex scandals, about the play's time period and setting. a dramaturg puts all that together.

how important are they? like anything, it's a mixed bag. in the first case, a really good dramaturg (meaning one who asks good questions then gets the hell out of the way) can really help a playwright develop new work. a bad one can completely derail a piece. in the second case, it's more intangible. a really great dramaturgical note might better prepare an audience for a play, or really solid historical dramaturgy might give a director more insight into the world and help create a better production.

they're not essential employees of a production, but they can definitely make an impact. (and this is coming from someone who dramaturgs at least one play a year.)

I'll tell you this about a dramaturg. As a playwright, whenever a point/topic/whatever is "discussed" by director/actor/tech/theatre head, the dramaturg's word carries much weight. I can't tell you how many times there's been a point in a play where my word for it doesn't hold weight. But if the dramaturg says it - BOOM! - it stays.
One thing that does suck about dramaturgs - when they're not as good in a subject as you are. The only that sucks more than being a playwright who knows more about a subject than the dramaturg, is to be a dramaturg who knows less about a subject than the playwright. I was a dramaturg for a new play about early 20th century Chicago. I knew nothing about it, but the playwright had written some 3 or 4 different books on the period. Yeah, I was pretty much hopeless.


"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

Besides the obvious like the live/"I'm there, the actors are there" moment?

Are there things in the form and material (physical - staging, lighting; etc.) of theatre that separate it from film & tv? I can think of an obvious one: it doesn't have the single perspective of the camera and lens. I'm sure there are other things. What are they?

What about tradition? What traditions are there that sort of have become "rules"/norms/expectations on both the part of the creators and audiences of theatre that are mostly or are totally out of the realm of film and tv?

Like, I notice, in my experience, some theatre people are more open to experimentation in theatre than in film and tv. I know a couple of people that love nonlinearity in plays, but despised films that were constructed so.

What about dramaturgy? In the sense of narrative and plot construction. More instances and acceptance of monologues and soliloquies? On a related note, do plays follow the models of Syd Fields and Robert McKee?

Basically school me on anything that applies.

You asked a LOT of shit there, my friend, lol. But I will be happy to share my opinions when I gather my thoughts on these matters.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

>Besides the obvious like the live/"I'm there, the actors are
>there" moment?

That's the big thing. My theory is that there is very little that theater can do better than film or television. That thing that is does better is pretty important though--direct human contact. I don't necessarily mean audience participation; I mean a personal contact between the folks onstage and the folks in the audience.

>Are there things in the form and material (physical - staging,
>lighting; etc.) of theatre that separate it from film & tv? I
>can think of an obvious one: it doesn't have the single
>perspective of the camera and lens. I'm sure there are other
>things. What are they?

While theater doesn't have the forced perspective of a camera, the audience is in a position to see everything at once. One of the things you teach theater actors is that they have to be acting at all times--someone in the theater is probably watching you, even if you're not the focus of the scene. The other big obvious difference has to do with effects--we're limited in what we can do onstage (even the big Broadway shows can't do what a movie can).

The upside of not being able to do crazy effects is that you're freed up to be more abstract and symbolic onstage. Let's say you're seeing a movie, and one character kills another. On film, we expect to see the killing depicted realistically (for the most part). Onstage though, the audience knows you can't get the same kind of realism, so you can do something like in CHICAGO (with the red ribbons representing blood) or some other symbolic representation. It opens the door for some exciting art.

>What about tradition? What traditions are there that sort of
>have become "rules"/norms/expectations on both the part of the
>creators and audiences of theatre that are mostly or are
>totally out of the realm of film and tv?

Musicals work better onstage. Absurd works (like Samuel Beckett or Eugene Ionesco's stuff) works a lot better onstage. Again, it's about abstraction.

>What about dramaturgy? In the sense of narrative and plot
>construction. More instances and acceptance of monologues and
>soliloquies? On a related note, do plays follow the models of
>Syd Fields and Robert McKee?

If you go to grad school, they'll often teach you traditional Aristotelean three act structures. A lot of plays follow the basics: a protagonist wants something and goes through a series of escalating obstacles to get it. Most Broadway shows and really popular pieces follow some version of this structure. There are a lot of plays that avoid the traditional though.

As for Fields and McKee...their theories are really based on playwriting theory.

>That's the big thing. My theory is that there is very little
>that theater can do better than film or television. That
>thing that is does better is pretty important though--direct
>human contact. I don't necessarily mean audience
>participation; I mean a personal contact between the folks
>onstage and the folks in the audience.

Yeah, it's pretty powerful.

>While theater doesn't have the forced perspective of a camera,
>the audience is in a position to see everything at once.

Yeah, I like that. It's the main reason why I like filmmakers who shoot scenes in long shots or have things going on in the foreground, midground, and background at the same time. I like editing with my eyes.

>One
>of the things you teach theater actors is that they have to be
>acting at all times--someone in the theater is probably
>watching you, even if you're not the focus of the scene.

I like the contiguity of performance in theatre which is why I give props to filmmakers and actors who operate in longish takes.

>The upside of not being able to do crazy effects is that
>you're freed up to be more abstract and symbolic onstage.
>Let's say you're seeing a movie, and one character kills
>another. On film, we expect to see the killing depicted
>realistically (for the most part). Onstage though, the
>audience knows you can't get the same kind of realism, so you
>can do something like in CHICAGO (with the red ribbons
>representing blood) or some other symbolic representation. It
>opens the door for some exciting art.
>
>>What about tradition? What traditions are there that sort
>of
>>have become "rules"/norms/expectations on both the part of
>the
>>creators and audiences of theatre that are mostly or are
>>totally out of the realm of film and tv?
>
>Musicals work better onstage. Absurd works (like Samuel
>Beckett or Eugene Ionesco's stuff) works a lot better onstage.
> Again, it's about abstraction.

Great points.

>As for Fields and McKee...their theories are really based on
>playwriting theory.

Right, right. I wanted to see if they were pervasive in theatre as somewhat the entry point. I knew a theatre prof who taught playwriting based on Fields' writing and used them as the class text for the most part.

>>As for Fields and McKee...their theories are really based on
>>playwriting theory.
>
>Right, right. I wanted to see if they were pervasive in
>theatre as somewhat the entry point. I knew a theatre prof
>who taught playwriting based on Fields' writing and used them
>as the class text for the most part.

In the context of contemporary playwriting, I should say.

>Besides the obvious like the live/"I'm there, the actors are
>there" moment?

I can tell you this. When you FEEL something at a play, that shit's more electric than anything you can feel in real life.
One thing I cherish about the theatre is the lack of bullshit. Meaning, you can buy a 60 year-old Harrison Ford swinging from a whip because it's film. Let a 60 year-old ANYBODY try that onstage. In theatre, you (as an actor/writer/director/tech) are forced to be much more creative with how to show things. A great example of this is The 39 Steps. The movie, good it may be (it's one of Hitchcock's forgotten treasures), is much more thrilling in the theatre.
A very big deal regarding it is this fact: you have to convince yourself of the physics in a movie. In theatre, you know the physics because they're the physics you're living with at the exact same time in the exact same place.

>What about tradition? What traditions are there that sort of
>have become "rules"/norms/expectations on both the part of the
>creators and audiences of theatre that are mostly or are
>totally out of the realm of film and tv?

There's so many more superstitions in theatre. Macbeth, "break a leg", a shit load more.

>What about dramaturgy? In the sense of narrative and plot
>construction. More instances and acceptance of monologues and
>soliloquies? On a related note, do plays follow the models of
>Syd Fields and Robert McKee?

Syd and McKee are almost entirely based on theatre conventions, to the point where they have to "remind" themselves about the "visual-ness" of film.


"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

"Movies will make you famous; television will make you rich; but theatre will make you good"

d

"There always have been motherfuckers, and there will always be motherfuckers, but what we can't do is let them control our motherfucking lives." - Correspondent John Oliver from The Daily Show re: the Mumbai terrorists

Very little dialogue. Ambiguous plots and character motivations. Emphasis on mood. Slowed down pacing. Passive characters.

They don't need to contain all of the above characteristics at once.

How about plays that focus on the mundane? Or plays that are rather undramatic.

Do they work on stage? If not, are there ways to make them?

And to my understanding, it's what you're asking about-- a lot of watching her simply exist onstage, watching her think, less dialogue than your average play. Some folks found it insanely boring... others found it riveting.

I've found that much like in film, if you EARN it, there's nothing better than a theater scene with really spare dialogue. Unfortunately, because cinema is primarily a VISUAL medium and theater is primarily an AURAL medium, theater can't throw you awesome visuals to earn the silence the way that film can.

One of the best theater scenes ever, and I mean it is makes-you-wanna-vomit-you're-laughing-so-hard funny, is in Larry Shue's The Foreigner. A slow country boy and a man pretending to not speak English share a meal together. I had to look away I was laughing so hard.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

>And to my understanding, it's what you're asking about-- a
>lot of watching her simply exist onstage, watching her think,
>less dialogue than your average play. Some folks found it
>insanely boring... others found it riveting.

I read about the play. I love the book. But the few articles I read didn't mention that it had less dialogue than the average play. I'll read the play soon. Thanks.

>I've found that much like in film, if you EARN it, there's
>nothing better than a theater scene with really spare
>dialogue. Unfortunately, because cinema is primarily a VISUAL
>medium and theater is primarily an AURAL medium, theater can't
>throw you awesome visuals to earn the silence the way that
>film can.

Are there plays in your opinion that don't necessarily foreground the aural properties of theatre, but are greater than some plays that do approach theatre as a aural medium?

>One of the best theater scenes ever, and I mean it is
>makes-you-wanna-vomit-you're-laughing-so-hard funny, is in
>Larry Shue's The Foreigner. A slow country boy and a man
>pretending to not speak English share a meal together. I had
>to look away I was laughing so hard.

Sounds like my kind of thing.

>>And to my understanding, it's what you're asking about-- a
>>lot of watching her simply exist onstage, watching her
>think,
>>less dialogue than your average play. Some folks found it
>>insanely boring... others found it riveting.
>
>I read about the play. I love the book. But the few articles
>I read didn't mention that it had less dialogue than the
>average play. I'll read the play soon. Thanks.

Like I said, I never saw it, so I can't vouch for it. But I did see her coming out of the theater late one night, so I shook her hand and told her I loved it, LOL.

>>I've found that much like in film, if you EARN it, there's
>>nothing better than a theater scene with really spare
>>dialogue. Unfortunately, because cinema is primarily a
>VISUAL
>>medium and theater is primarily an AURAL medium, theater
>can't
>>throw you awesome visuals to earn the silence the way that
>>film can.
>
>Are there plays in your opinion that don't necessarily
>foreground the aural properties of theatre, but are greater
>than some plays that do approach theatre as a aural medium?

Great question. I'm not sure if I've seen any that FULLY capture this idea-- obviously many plays have silent moments that are terrific. The closest I can get to thinking of authors who are as into image and silence as they are the dialogue is Beckett, or other authors who delve into the absurd. In Play, for example, they are decrepit heads poking out of urns. This does really make it ALLLLL about the dialogue since nothing moves other than the lips and the blinking eyes, but the image is arresting, and every silence is filled with meaning. Pinter is also insanely dialogue-centered, but the Pinter pauses are famous in theater for being packed with content. So other than authors who explore absurdism or mime, usually the best plays in terms of successful non-aural elements are also the ones who are best at writing dialogue. If that makes sense, lol.

>>One of the best theater scenes ever, and I mean it is
>>makes-you-wanna-vomit-you're-laughing-so-hard funny, is in
>>Larry Shue's The Foreigner. A slow country boy and a man
>>pretending to not speak English share a meal together. I had
>>to look away I was laughing so hard.
>
>Sounds like my kind of thing.

I can't think of a movie that has ever made me laugh harder than the funniest plays I've seen.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

you'e got beckett, of course. WAITING FOR GODOT is a play about two guys waiting. very little happens. there's a whole school of drama that follows those ideas.

then you've got stuff today like nature theater of oklahoma -- they intentionally do stuff that's undramatic, or at least non-narrative. there are lots of folks experimenting with form. most of them aren't super popular though.

lots of things work onstage. STOMP is completely non-narrative and undramatic, but it's an absolutely incredible (and financially successful) show.

>Very little dialogue. Ambiguous plots and character
>motivations. Emphasis on mood. Slowed down pacing. Passive
>characters.
>
>They don't need to contain all of the above characteristics at
>once.
>
>How about plays that focus on the mundane? Or plays that are
>rather undramatic.
>
>Do they work on stage? If not, are there ways to make them?

>you'e got beckett, of course. WAITING FOR GODOT is a play
>about two guys waiting. very little happens.

Forgot about that one. Maybe because I tend to associate little plot with very little dialogue.

>there's a whole school of drama that follows those ideas.

Are there other plays that you think are good at the very least? No need to name a lot.

I got Happy Days. Gonna read it soon.

>then you've got stuff today like nature theater of oklahoma --
>they intentionally do stuff that's undramatic, or at least
>non-narrative. there are lots of folks experimenting with
>form. most of them aren't super popular though.

I'll read up on them. Thanks.

"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

Is that a common least-favorite aspect of the job for actors on stage? Or are they so good at it, it's nothing.

----
I check for: Serengeti, Zeroh, Open Mike Eagle, Jeremiah Jae, Moka Only.

For someone like Neil Labute or John Patrick Shanley, where the lines are fairly stream-of-conscious, it's pretty easy to memorize a whole play.

For someone like David Mamet, where the lines are choppy, incomplete, and repetitive, it is a goddamn chore.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

for most plays. like longo says, there are some writers who are notoriously hard to memorize. but for the most part, actors can handle the memorization pretty well. you've gotta remember that they spend at least a month in rehearsal usually, doing the show over and over. they start working on it in chunks, and they build it all together over time.

a lot of actors say that it's like learning music--once you've heard/sung a song enough times, it gets in your body.

Especially - ESPECIALLY - when the dialogue is RIGHT.
By RIGHT, I mean, as the actor, you're reading and you're thinking, "Yes, this is what this character would say in this situation, this makes sense." When you don't get that feeling, it becomes more of a chore - you have to REMIND yourself what the line is/are instead of KNOWING the line(s).
I think Iagoli just said it, and it's very true: it really is like learning a song. Especially when it's months later, the play is over, you're already onto the next play. Then you hear one line from the play and suddenly you remember every line for the next two acts. Just like how you can't recall the lyrics to a song, but as soon as you hear the first note, you remember all the verses.
I've found learning lines, from Shakespeare to Mamet, is the easiest part, for a few reasons. 1)It's the only part you have sole control over. You can't help if the other actor in the scene sucks, but you can have your cues. 2)Directors LOVE actors who have all their lines, to the point of hiring actors because they get their lines quickly. Therefore, as an actor, it is to your advantage to be quick with memorization. 3)A lot of the other aspects of theatre are based off the words. Theatre being an AURAL artform, everything revolves around the word. Cues for techs, other actors, the story. Meaning, they have to do stuff based on YOU saying something. All you gotta do is get the line right (or close).

"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

Thought it was like "Here's a book. Memorize it for next week."

----
I check for: Serengeti, Zeroh, Open Mike Eagle, Jeremiah Jae, Moka Only.

In directing a Mamet play right now, it has been a CHORE for my lead actor.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

but in general, memorization isn't one of the biggest problems actors face.

...that it is the question I get the MOST from non-actors when wondering how hard it is to be an actor.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

it's the first question students ask of actors, for sure.

"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

I feel like I know next to dick about theater but I love seeing people talk about craft, regardless of medium.

Here's a question: What's the best way to objectively judge a play? Are well versed theater heads able to get everything they need from a play by just reading it off a page? Or does it need to be seen as a performance on a stage? And if so, say the production doesn't live up to the source material, is it difficult to compartmentalize those 2 things?

That's one of the more fascinating aspects of theater for me, that it's never the same thing twice. I mean, there's a script. And in some cases there's even a cast of actors that get identified with a particular play. But you really never know what you're going to get. When it comes to actual theater criticism, I would think that presents a challenge.

-----------------------------
http://talestosuffice.com/
@kennykeil

>Here's a question: What's the best way to objectively judge a
>play?

You can't. LOL. It's always subjective.

Are well versed theater heads able to get everything
>they need from a play by just reading it off a page? Or does
>it need to be seen as a performance on a stage?

In my opinion, you have to see it. Theater was created to be heard, not read. If you were getting to hear the play via some sort of read-aloud audio book slash radio play, then that would be acceptable to some degree in my opinion. But Shakespeare's plays were never meant to be read off the page. And I feel like most playwrights, while they desire to have their plays published, would prefer people see the work.

And if so, say
>the production doesn't live up to the source material, is it
>difficult to compartmentalize those 2 things?

This blends into your next point, so one second.

>That's one of the more fascinating aspects of theater for me,
>that it's never the same thing twice. I mean, there's a
>script. And in some cases there's even a cast of actors that
>get identified with a particular play. But you really never
>know what you're going to get. When it comes to actual theater
>criticism, I would think that presents a challenge.

Seeing as how that's what my MA is in, I can safely say it presents a ridiculous challenge. To some degree, you can treat the script as a book-- certain themes, regardless of who's reading it, will emerge. The author has a unique voice that cannot be TOTALLY overwhelmed by the director/actors most of the time.

But material can be DRAAAAASTICALLY changed depending on who's doing it. If you've seen five different Hamlets, you've likely walked away with five differing views on the character. My opinion is, unless you see something new in a play, why remount it? If you're just replicating the previous theater experience with a new cast, then leave it alone. That's what's so great about theater-- you can reinvigorate a script AND remain true to the author's intentions. With film, it's much much harder, plus with the previous incarnation readily available on DVD, it's easier to compare the two-- with theater, all you have is what memorable aspects stuck in your brain, and how your brain tries to push those pieces of the puzzle in line with the new production.

For instance, I'm doing a production of David Mamet's Oleanna for the Duke University Theatre Department right now (my first paid gig directing, what upppp). I'm taking the conventional interpretations of the play, and giving them a twist--- usually, either the man character is an asshole, or the woman character is a bitch. However, I feel that while it's easy to make that read upon initial glance, and while it makes the play interesting in that divisive sort of way, I am interested in what happens if I make the characters more sympathetic, more human. I don't think this turns away from what Mamet intended-- in fact, in all his writings on theater, he URGES the directors and actors to never ever ever ever judge the characters. Will it work? I think so, but I don't really know until opening night.

That's the beauty of theater-- you can imagine reading something off the page how it will be in your interpretation, but you never REALLY know until it's there in front of you what type of a reaction it will give you.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

> (my first
>paid gig directing, what upppp)

When you get to it, there's only one question: did you like the play? That's the only thing that matters.

There are things you can look at on a more objective level, to a degree: does the play tell a story? is that story clear? is it about a person who wants something? are there obstacles? do those obstacles escalate? is there a resolution? have the characters changed from the beginning to the end? questions like these can speak to some sense of if it is a well-written play, for example. but if you don't like it, you don't like it. period.

plays are written to be performed. you should see them onstage to really appreciate them. that said, you can get some pretty good ideas from reading a script.

>Here's a question: What's the best way to objectively judge a
>play? Are well versed theater heads able to get everything
>they need from a play by just reading it off a page? Or does
>it need to be seen as a performance on a stage? And if so, say
>the production doesn't live up to the source material, is it
>difficult to compartmentalize those 2 things?
>
>That's one of the more fascinating aspects of theater for me,
>that it's never the same thing twice. I mean, there's a
>script. And in some cases there's even a cast of actors that
>get identified with a particular play. But you really never
>know what you're going to get. When it comes to actual theater
>criticism, I would think that presents a challenge.
>

...due to my background. I have a degree in Theatre Production, directed 10 shows, acted in over two dozens, and written more than 40 plays. Outside of theatre administration and costumes (I can't sew to save my life), there literally isn't a job in the theatre world I haven't done. I'm assuming its because of this fact that I find it pretty easy to read a play and know what I'm going to see. I usually have no trouble reading a play and figuring out how a production will look.
That being said, the best way to judge a play is by seeing it. After all, it's written to be seen. That's just the nature of the artform.
Plus, it's a collaborative artform. Often is a play better than the sum of its parts. One of the reasons for this is because everyone working on a play is working for the sake of the play. This dictum isn't followed nearly as well in any other artform. Example: say you're in a band and you're recording an album. You need at least 20 heads for this job - but they generally aren't working for the good of the album. They're working to make sure they do their job well. You'll have at least 20 cats on a theatre production (and that's a small production). All of them, while yes want to make sure they do their job well, are focused on doing what they can to make the play a success. That shared goal-driven mindstate is really one of the more amazing things about theatre, and is why a play is 9 times out of 10 better than its parts.
While I know others disagree, I think it's possible to compartmentalize a production - it just requires a better than "working knowledge" of the "compartments". A lot of theatre folks just know one of the elements well, and the others by a very limited proxy (there's very little overlap in theatre when it comes to jobs), which naturally makes it more difficult for said theatre folks to know why/how a production/play does(n't) work. The more areas you know, the more you can compartmentalize.

>When it comes to actual theater criticism, I would think that >presents a challenge.

Theatre criticism is a bitch. I don't wish that on my worst enemy. I tend to get a lot of gigs doing theatre criticism, and even being as well-versed in the areas as I am, that job is difficult to do, and much harder to do consistently well.
There's quite a bit of tension between theatre critics and theatre folks. Productions literally live and die by a critic's review (example: American Buffalo opened and closed on Broadway in less than a month mostly because of the review). The "critics vs. theatre folks" argument is worthy of its own post, but in short, a lot of theatre folks - actors in particular - think critics are too harsh, are out to make a name for themselves, cripple new theatre, and are out to destroy new playwrights. Critics counter by stating arguments that basically revolve around a quality criteria. I'll save any further comment on the matter for the brave soul willing to put up a "theatre critic vs. theatre folks" post.

Hope you found this helpful.


"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

I don't drink and I don't like TV. You'd be surprised what that does for your weekend.
But yeah, over 40. I stopped counting a few years ago. I found an old list my sister put together when I went through my storage unit. Lengths, styles, genres, whatever. Been writing plays for a little over 10 years now.
Learn the format and have something to say - that's it really.

"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

have you done a lot of development/production of all those pieces?
i'm always impressed/jealous of prolific folks.
i'm struggling to stay on a one full-length per year pace.

...written more plays than plays I can remember writing, about half of them (I think) are full lengths.
I started out writing full lengths, which I'm told is the exact opposite of most playwrights. This is something I've never understood. I always thought you work at least on the level you want to be seen on. Track & field cats who run 100m races - they practice by running 200m. They damn sure don't practice by running 50m. What's interesting is that you can usually tell what a playwright first started writing when you read their full lengths. Those who started with FLs tend to have strong FLs (Martin Mcdonagh, Shanley), while those who start with 1As - their FLs tend to read like three 1As put together (Ives, Durang).
I've done a good amount of development on "most" of them. I've got a nice collection of videotaped readings, and each one has a few drafts. The problem is when you're writing so damn much, you tend to be your own worst enemy. I mean, I was writing a new play every five weeks at one point, for damn near a year. When you're writing at that speed, you get little done - you're already on the next one. A lot of it for me is a matter of getting it out of my head so I can start working on the next one.
I have a damn near invisible production record for just about all of them. Again, too much time spent writing and not enough time spent getting them up on their feet. Also, working in more than one field hurts. If I get steady acting work for a few months, the writing suffers. If I get steady directing work, the writing flat out doesn't happen. Then you combine that with other writing jobs (TV, screenplays, novels, etc). A friend of mine yesterday was going on about how "You idea people don't spend enough time closing the deal."
I can say the biggest reason I haven't worked on getting more of them produced is because I don't know a lot of people I'm interested in working with. The quality of the theatre scene in Philadelphia is VERY disappointing. I'd love to be in a position where I'm in contact with quality theatre professionals - that would make me want to get these works up. But I'll be honest, I'd rather not have them performed than have them done poorly.
As far as being prolific. I don't really consider myself prolific. I call it the "Don't look down Wyle E. Coyote!" theory: soon as I look down, I fall. I can say I started pretty blind to what and how a playwright is supposed to work, which worked to my advantage (I discovered theatre a lot later than most, and I'm definitely NOT considered a "theatre person"). My thinking always was, "Sooner or later, they won't come as quickly." It's about 10 years later, and I'm finding that to be true now. I'm now down to just a few plays a year. This has become a good thing, I already have a body of work to go back to.
It may sound bogus, but if I were you, I wouldn't waste a moment being jealous about it. The grass ain't that green 'round these parts. Spend that time and energy around quality people in the theatre field. I'd trade my 4/5 plays a year for 1 a year if it meant productions with people who actually know what they're doing. Ain't a lot of fun sitting on 40+ plays wondering if every talented theatre person left Philly for New York.
Remember, August Wilson only wrote 10 plays.


"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

and again, i'm impressed.
i do spend a big chunk of my time on the business stuff (sometimes more than on the writing).
it's leading to a good place for me.
but still--churning out work is a dream of mine on some level.

>Learn the format and have something to say - that's it
>really.
>

i'm a writer but i tend to lean more towards short stories and poetry. i have also written a screenplay. and i do have alot to say...lol

any tips you could give on playwriting?

d

do you have a story that you think would work better onstage than film or the page?

I don't mean that rudely. I mean, my school was doing a play and the teacher knew I was writing and "tricked" me into proving it. I got the benefit of seeing what LITERALLY doesn't work on stage and taking it from there.
One very serious tip I always give about writing (plays, novels, scripts, whatever) DO NOT LEARN HOW TO DO IT FROM A BOOK.
I repeat.
DO NOT LEARN HOW TO DO IT FROM A BOOK.
If you see a book that says it will "teach you how to write a play" - practice your jumpshot with it into the trash. Every play that ever came from one of those books is absolute trash. The writers that come from those books are absolute trash.
The best way to learn how to swim is by diving in the deep end of the pool. So, hit your local library and see how the best did it.
As far as what's considered the standard format - the format by and large hasn't changed in a good hundred years. Some playwrights fool with it here and there (2 examples: Tennessee Williams has these novel-length descriptions of shit that does not need to be described, Susan Lori-Parks does this "who has the ball" kind of description), but I'd say Arthur Miller is probably a good bet, in terms of "his plays look like what plays look like".
Another tip:
Don't write something wack. I'm tired of wack new plays.


"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

A lot of plays that make it to the place where they get reviewed really AREN'T that good, or are put out before being ready. Theater production is like one of those circus acts where the guy is spinning plates on all of the rods... every element is a spinning plate of ego, and if even one falls, then it's not gonna be consistently good enough. Also, a lot of productions (including the recent American Buffalo, if that's what you're referencing) rely too heavily on star power and gloss, and not enough on capturing the essence of the plays.

I agree that most critics are just trying to make a name for themselves, and they don't follow the law of Ebert-- go into the theater wanting to like what you see. But the fact that so many shows get mediocre reviews is more a reflection on the state of American theater than on the state of criticism, since critics have been able to make or break a show since the dawn on Broadway.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

I don't believe theatre critics are really out to make a name for themselves. American theatre simply sucks. American theatre is in such an incredibly horrid state, I don't know how any can take it seriously.
Every time I hear a theatre person complain about a review, I just wanna slap them. JUST BECAUSE YO SHIT IS WACK DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN GET MAD FOR BEING CALLED OUT OVER IT!!!!!!
Can someone explain to me why I should have to sit through a bad play, just because it's the playwright's first play? In what other artform is this kind of logic expected?

"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

a lot of what gets produced is undeniably wack.
a lot of what gets DEVELOPED is incredibly good.
the best plays in this country can be found at play readings, i think.
we're in a pretty good time for playwrights -- we've got some great folks writing for the stage right now.
there's just a breakdown between what's getting written and what's getting staged.

I pay to watch them play the game.


"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

I'm fixing to live in this post for a while.
I'll be back with some stuff to speak on.

"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

----------------------------


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.



"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop"

it's Off Broadway...debut. i haven't been to see a play in a long time....looking forward to it. i generally gravitate towards musical theatre

oh sorry, there was no question here. lol

d

"There always have been motherfuckers, and there will always be motherfuckers, but what we can't do is let them control our motherfucking lives." - Correspondent John Oliver from The Daily Show re: the Mumbai terrorists

i'm always interested in how folks decide what to see

so i have no idea what i'm getting into. but i like that.

but if i were to attempt to select a show to see, i'm a big follower of the reviews in TimeOut New York. I think their critics hate most stuff, so when they actually like something, i figure it must be good. And that's always worked well for me. But i wouldn't avoid a show because a particular critic didn't like it..you know what i mean?

incidentally, they gave Dust a negative review.

d


"There always have been motherfuckers, and there will always be motherfuckers, but what we can't do is let them control our motherfucking lives." - Correspondent John Oliver from The Daily Show re: the Mumbai terrorists

which is sad, but it's the way it is.
i thought about seeing that one because they have a money back guarantee: http://www.playbill.com/news/article/124425.html

"There always have been motherfuckers, and there will always be motherfuckers, but what we can't do is let them control our motherfucking lives." - Correspondent John Oliver from The Daily Show re: the Mumbai terrorists

They're not always on, but when I see shows they dislike, I get why. When they like something, it's almost always really good.

"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

so we usually check to see what's playing there because we have rarely been let down with a production. We usually look for a familiar director or writer and sometimes just take a random chance on something that sounds interesting if we're looking at other theaters. Other than that we look for productions by Culture Clash, a Chicano performance group, who always come with something thought provoking.

_____________________________________________

Long Beach is the spot where I serve my caine - Snoop

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

also, i used to do musical theater. I performed in this Off Off Rock musical called Jessie...if my memory serves me, it was at the Chelsea Playhouse or something like that *it's since been torn down *. One of the greatest times of my life...i still have the program

d

"There always have been motherfuckers, and there will always be motherfuckers, but what we can't do is let them control our motherfucking lives." - Correspondent John Oliver from The Daily Show re: the Mumbai terrorists