Post by Christie on Jul 11, 2012 16:55:27 GMT -10
In 1972 The Performance Group led by Richard Schechner performed Sam Shepard's Tooth of the Crime. At that time the Performance Group (later creating the Wooster Group) did environmental theatre. Every show that was performed had a space created solely for the play. For this production they created a set that was in the round but was very tall. It meant that the audience needed to move around the set to see several things. Audience members were allowed to sit on the stage move around even sit on the bed with the actors during the show. It was a very non-traditional production of a standard play.
I found a letter from Shepard on his reaction to the play that I found really interesting.
"I have from many eyewitness account that the production is far from what I had in mind. But I never expected it to be any different and I don't see why you should expect my vision of the play to change......It may be interesting theater but it's not the play and it can never be the play. I'm sure if you attempt other plays by living writers you're going to run into the same situation. It's a question you should really look into rather than sweep it aside as being old fashioned or even unimportant."
Sounds to me like he didn't really appreciate the changing of his play and didn't really find it to be his play at all. The production didn't change the script at all but it interests me that he says its "theatre" but it will "never be the play". Obviously dealing with a completely dead Marlowe won't hinder our production and we will never have to explain ourself to the author. Whew. I think to Shepard, being a playwright, that the words of a play are what gives the production it's identity. I guess I had never thought about it but for me the story, characters and plot are what gives a play it's identity.
When dealing with a story like Faustus that has been redone and re-writen this is true. I would love to see the entire play without text. (it would be much shorter) but I think the story would show true.
I wonder what scenes could be best shown without the text?
I also wonder what letter Marlowe would write to Kipuka Theatre after seeing a extremely non-traditional version of his play.
In this production little was given to hold the audience back. Schechner says that he was surprised how eager the audience was to move around and explore the space. Pre theatre he told the audience to think of the show as a movie they were filming and that the movie got better with the more perspectives they got on it. On some nights Schechner decided to tell the audience nothing and see what they do. The outcome was awkward audience members who arranged themselves in neat lines on the floor and moved around at inappropriate times during the show. It's really interesting how much more liberties people will take when their given permission. The set was clear that they should move around and see different parts of the action but they didn't move even though it was obvious they should.
Do you give your audience permission? ... Or not?
Anyway these are my thoughts
I found a letter from Shepard on his reaction to the play that I found really interesting.
"I have from many eyewitness account that the production is far from what I had in mind. But I never expected it to be any different and I don't see why you should expect my vision of the play to change......It may be interesting theater but it's not the play and it can never be the play. I'm sure if you attempt other plays by living writers you're going to run into the same situation. It's a question you should really look into rather than sweep it aside as being old fashioned or even unimportant."
Sounds to me like he didn't really appreciate the changing of his play and didn't really find it to be his play at all. The production didn't change the script at all but it interests me that he says its "theatre" but it will "never be the play". Obviously dealing with a completely dead Marlowe won't hinder our production and we will never have to explain ourself to the author. Whew. I think to Shepard, being a playwright, that the words of a play are what gives the production it's identity. I guess I had never thought about it but for me the story, characters and plot are what gives a play it's identity. When dealing with a story like Faustus that has been redone and re-writen this is true. I would love to see the entire play without text. (it would be much shorter) but I think the story would show true.
I wonder what scenes could be best shown without the text?
I also wonder what letter Marlowe would write to Kipuka Theatre after seeing a extremely non-traditional version of his play.
In this production little was given to hold the audience back. Schechner says that he was surprised how eager the audience was to move around and explore the space. Pre theatre he told the audience to think of the show as a movie they were filming and that the movie got better with the more perspectives they got on it. On some nights Schechner decided to tell the audience nothing and see what they do. The outcome was awkward audience members who arranged themselves in neat lines on the floor and moved around at inappropriate times during the show. It's really interesting how much more liberties people will take when their given permission. The set was clear that they should move around and see different parts of the action but they didn't move even though it was obvious they should.
Do you give your audience permission? ... Or not?
Anyway these are my thoughts