tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9902716.post116189439219525234..comments2024-02-22T01:36:48.427-08:00Comments on On Theatre and Politics - Matthew Freeman: LengthFreemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01183078884824734105noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9902716.post-1162039282533738732006-10-28T05:41:00.000-07:002006-10-28T05:41:00.000-07:00I think the operative word is "too," as in "excess...I think the operative word is "too," as in "excessive." "It's not too long" means that there is enough done in the time used to justify the length. I've recently worked on a scant 75-minute play that felt too long in places, yet before reading this I had no idea that "The Most Wonderful Love" was over two hours. In the latter, there was enough there to keep me entertained throughout. Sure there are those who use length as a criteria for deciding to buy tickets, which is unfortunate, but I think this is less to do with busy schedules, and more to do with too many plays being produced before the script has been rigorously edited.Gingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11189747131843365303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9902716.post-1161969493957967282006-10-27T10:18:00.000-07:002006-10-27T10:18:00.000-07:00Yet again I find myself out of step with current s...Yet again I find myself out of step with current sensibilities. I like long stuff. When I think back on the real turning-point theatrical experiences of my life, so many have been long: "The Kentucky Cycle" - six hours. "Richard II" with Fiona Shaw in London - three hours and forty-five minutes. The list goes on. I have nothing against short, short can be brilliant (I would have given damn near anything to have seen Harold Pinter do "Krapp's Last Tape" last week). I wonder, though, if TV has conditioned many of us to the point that everything must be geared to Short Attention Span Theatre. It seems to me that we lose a sense of the epic when we decide to try to make everything fit into 90 minutes, and I've always been a big fan of epics. They have to be carefully crafted to be that lengthy successfully, but when it works it can be terrific. I don't remember anyone complaining about "Lord of the Rings" - how many people when out and bought the even longer extended versions on DVD? <BR/><BR/>I wonder what effect this has on what kind of plays get written? We've already heard how writers learn quick that if they want their stuff produced, they better write for no more than 6 actors. I'm thinking that length might be subject to similar restrictions, but I dunno. Check out American Theatre's roundup of most produced plays this season. What's at the top? Surprise - "I Am My Own Wife". Now I don't really know the play at all, it's won lots of awards and I'm sure it's brilliant. But let's face it - that's not why it's getting produced everywhere. Also high on the list is "The Santaland Diaries", several other short, solo and low-actor-count plays, and I'm pretty sure the most populous play to make the list is "Gem of the Ocean", and I don't think that play's cast even reaches double digits. There's nothing wrong with writing plays for only one or a small handful of actors - but I do wonder if the the reality of the odds of getting produced anywhere sends playwrights the clear message: "Keep it short and sparsely populated" and if that ultimately limits the kind of work that gets produced and seen. Maybe playwrights should ask themselves, "If I had all the money and resources in the world, and as many actors as I want, what would I write?" Just to see if the answer to that question is different from the length/company size of what they're writing now. If not, great. But if you find yourself thinking you'd write bigger/longer if you could, hmm, that's a dilemma worth talking about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9902716.post-1161901411447968872006-10-26T15:23:00.000-07:002006-10-26T15:23:00.000-07:00I think what people (agents are famous for saying ...I think what people (agents are famous for saying this) mean when they speak of brevity as a virtue is that they're more excited when plays by playwrights-they've-yet-to-experience are short. Even if they wind up liking them. Time is really valuable to people and it's hard enough to get people to see a play at all, let alone for a length of time that will throw their weekly schedule out of whack, cost more for a babysitter, etc. <BR/><BR/>Also, for people who see a lot of theater (the aforementioned agents, yours truly, etc.), their longer outings tend to be reserved for things they're more identified with--known commodities. That's not right or wrong, it just is.<BR/><BR/>Yes, people will settle in for three-plus for Albee or Stoppard (not that anyone could drag me to much of the latter), but they know what they're getting into. One has to earn that.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16073241969401141732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9902716.post-1161897282293304182006-10-26T14:14:00.000-07:002006-10-26T14:14:00.000-07:00The best thing about the 60-90 minute play is that...The best thing about the 60-90 minute play is that if it isn't your cup of tea, you're out before too long. If it is just the kind of thing you're looking for you can always leave them wanting more.<BR/><BR/>In today's world were 95% of what we call entertainment is broken up into 30 or 60 minute chunks on the TV...I think it only makes sense that may of us perfer a shorter form.<BR/><BR/>But, I would respect the playwright who writes what they intend to write and the piece is over when it is over. If it takes 90 minutes to tell...fine...if it takes 3 hours to tell fine too. But, if it takes 45 minutes to tell and the playwright has stretched than into a longer play so that they have a "full length" piece...I say ughhhh!Devilvethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01425758108288436683noreply@blogger.com