Sunday, March 13, 2005

The Play's the Thing

I love the theatre. This obsession began in 2002 when I overdosed on plays during a little thing I like to call "The Dean and Gideon Show in London," aka the Theatre in London study abroad. So when my friend reminded me to check out the show he was directing at the Alpine Playhouse, I was so there.

The show was "A Midsummer Night's Dream" and I thought Josh did a brilliant job. There were times when it felt as if the entire play was coming from Josh's personality and experience, and other times when the play actually lived. Most of those times came when Puck was on stage. Played by an AFHS student, Puck created some of the most beautiful and funniest moments of the play. His final monologue was perfectly lit and the silver glitter he had spread over the stage earlier was reflecting from his hair and it was perfect.

It was only later, when I was driving back to P-town with my roommate, and analyzing the play when I realized two things. One, that AMND is about sex and sexuality and sexual tension, of which there was very little in this production. I was commenting on the exchange between Puck and the fairy, which I personally think is best played with some tension between the two. In this production it was treated like a child's argument, with Puck teasing the fairy. It bugged. Reason for this choice, and the other choices in the play? Utah Valley perhaps? Survey says: eh. The real reason is that Josh is a very good young man recently returned from a mission who gets a little queasy at the thought of a hug. And though he's had some excellent kisses on stage, off stage his love life hasn't really happened post-mish.

Second realization. I love theatre, but I always come away feeling somewhat empty. Why is that? I was debating that it's because I don't have a way to transfer the emotion created by the play, but I have this (aka writing). Maybe it's that I don't have a physical outlet. Maybe it's that I'm jealous that performing artists at least get to display their talent to their friends and family--most people who fall in that category for me don't want to read anything more than the most superficial of articles and they definitely don't want to hear about my theories re: contemporary anything.

I'm hoping grad school will provide an outlet. But I've decided to stay at BYU for my masters, and will that really change anything? When do the writers get to be heard? Especially if we're not looking to be the next Jack Weyland or Anita Stansfield, John Grisham or. . . I've run out of steam. Why do we do this? Why do we write? Because if it's for acclaim, we might as well stop. And now there will be many philosophical and slightly self-righteous postings about how we have to write, which is the right answer according to Leslie Norris. But is that the answer? Why do we write? Is it creation? And does it count if nobody is around to appreciate it?


hate me please said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
hate me please said...

when something breaks it needs to be fixed. maybe that's why i write. out of the same exact motivation of paul my hero.

Anonymous said...

when something breaks it needs to be fixed. maybe that's why i write. out of the same exact motivation of paul my hero.

hate me please said...

oh sorry, this computer is screwy. or else i'm just really insistent and want to make it look like some anonymous person agrees with me word for word

KapkaVictim said... catch the king."

Sorry. When I was in drama sorts of things in high school, everyone would take things out of context. It's a pet peeve sort of thing.

when something breaks it needs to be fixed. maybe that's why i write. our of the same exact motivation of paul my hero.

Paul seems to be an occasional writer, by which I mean he wrote for the occasion, whether that be big, bad, judahizers or everyone in Thessalonika quitting their jobs because they beleived the second coming was down their back. I hope you write real letters. And circulars. But not epistles, because Paul didn't write epistles.

editorgirl said...

". . . wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king."

I wasn't taking it out of context. I meant what I wrote and I wrote what I meant. Just like good old HMP.

Special K said...

when something breaks it needs to be fixed. maybe that's why i write. out of the same exact motivation of paul my hero.

hate me please said...

the paul of which i speak is still living. paul of car-stress, not paul of tarsus.

paul the mechanic, who doesn't write, but acts out of the same motivation.

i'm pleased to see that i have become the center (in some manner) of this. i've always been annoyed (i deleted hated, being a little strong for this sentiment) the cliche genre of writings about writers. especially movies, you get a lot of movies about writers. i get the feeling in joyce a lot that he is writing arrogant things about the writer, i didn't follow portrait of the artist as a young man. I don't see why the artist deserves some sort of agrandizement, espeically since it is so often necessary for the artist himself to provide its own agrandizement.

nothing makes painting or writing art that doesn't make auto repair art. give me the lowest basest work, and I will show you a canvas waiting for an artist.


Template by Blogger Candy