The sporadic ramblings of Emily C. A. Snyder - devoted to God, theatre, writing, and much randominity.

My Photo
Name:
Location: New York, New York, United States

Host: "Hamlet to Hamilton: Exploring Verse Drama" | Founder: TURN TO FLESH PRODUCTIONS | Author: "Cupid and Psyche" "Nachtsturm Castle" & Others | Caitlin O'Sullivan in "The Ghost Ship" (Boston Metaphysical Society)

Monday, October 31, 2005

Anne is now Kate

Because - it's just right. And it's bendable: Kate to her husband's Jack (Astrophel's given name is Jonathan - perhaps Jakes to the Privy Council), Katherine by christening, Rhianne to those who flatter the "jealous" wife, Stella and of course Constanze. Felicity is Lissa, Licit or Licity for short to various, and Sir Flick when she, too, is in disguise. I'm tempted to have Flick be my fop - although Constanze might prove to be one as well.

So odd that in the midst of one artistic crunch I turn to another. Oy.

Mood: Must do stuff for Nutcracker. Meh. Paperwork.
Music: "I Want to be a Producer" a la the mental jukebox
Thought: In point of fact, the last thing I want to be is a producer - unless it is executive merely to exert artistic control. But boy do I wish I had the system more similar to the Savoyards right now...!

Sunday, October 30, 2005

What's that old saw?

That the car knows when there's a little extra money by? Yeah. Never realised how much I depend on Glorielle until the muffler went the other night (see below). Am currently being ushered hither and yon as part of the great car shuffle that has taken hold of our house (thanks to the van being also out of commission). But, praise God, Dad got the computer job (alleluia!) so here's to a what little monetary help that brings! (And long life to the job! And much in the way of overtime!)

Finished Shadowplay and find myself desperate to a) reread in better detail those plays of Shakespeare's that I've been avoiding due to their insipidness as a piece of actable/directable drama (or so it seeeeeeemed.... *cue mystery music a la 80's synthesizer to the sudden camera zoom*) and b) to pick up pen and try my hand at...overt? No, conscious shadowplay. I think I want to do a nod to early Restoration-sounding theatre (not quite Shakespeare, not quite Wilde) that would allow me to have my hero address the audience in quasi-sililoquy, saying, "Thus shall I make a mistress of my wife." The basic idea is that of - oh, shoot, forget the martyr - augh, Sh. would bop me for forgetting - anywho, who had the audacity to fall in love with his own wife. So that model - at least the shock with which Elizabeth received the news - mixed with Chesterton's "The Man who Lived," Molieresque farce, a dollop of Shakespearean gender-bending to prove gender roles, and a requisite Wildean fop as the affected disaffected affecting narrator - and I think I'll be all set.

Right, so the thought is (totally brainstorming here - or perhaps merely brain-drizzling, seeing how it sometimes, as Julie has pointed out, gets later) something like this:

  • Begin with our requisite two gossips, we'll call them Lady Tattle and Lady Tellal for now, who are discussing the current gossip that our hero - Lord [Some clever Latin cognate...we'll go for now with] Astrophile, known perhaps to his friends as Errol or Tyrone or somesuch Christening - has had the bad taste to fall in love with his wife, Lady Anne or Clara [or some other simple saint name...unless she, too, be a clever Latin cognate - but not Lucrece or Philomel or anything long and beginning with A which would make reading difficult if he is Astrophile...so perhaps we'll keep to Anne for now].

  • Part of the scandal of course is that Astrophile was contracted to marry Anne (perhaps with a French or Spanish surname?) by the Queen (do we want Elizabeth or no? She'll do as well for now, anyway), to keep both parties close to herself: Astrophile as an accomplished ornament to her court and Anne as the daughter of an imprisoned or exectued traitor.

  • Naturally, the idea is that in that court it's common for one to marry for the title but to keep a mistress for "love." Hence, to fall in love with one's own wife is seen as simply absurd - or a nasty ambition, vanity or flippancy. Certainly it's seen as a betrayal of the Queen.

  • So, fearful of their position at court and pressed on all sides (by Tattle and Tellal as well as their husbands or others of the Privy Council), Anne and Astrophile decide to pretend that Astrophile has fallen out of love with his wife and is open to the idea of a mistress.

  • Anne then, aided by her staunch friend, hrm...Felicity, yeah, that'll do, or somesuch like...pulls of not just a double but a triple masquerade. She is, while still herself, as well a "jealous" wife as well as her husband's new "mistress," Stella.

  • Felicity aids Anne (Or should she be Penelope? Do I want a Perpetua?) by dressing herself as Stella when Tattle, Tellal or any of the court need to see Anne up close and Astrophile walking in the gardens with his "mistress" (Anne and Felicity should be similar in appearance).

  • But it would be good if Felicity had her own subplot as well, since I do not think she is married at the beginning of the play.... Perhaps it can be worked into the second half's fourth masquerade.

  • Right, so although this will most likely fall into a classic five-act structure, the "second half" of the practical play ought to have another twist. Some news - perhaps brought by a pastoral (ha ha!) character who becomes Felicity's love interest - shall we be completely surface and call him Peter? Or should we instead christen him Adam or sommat more everymannish? We'll go with Peter for now, I think.... Anywho, Peter comes to Felicity with news of some trouble that Astrophile's gotten into - perhaps he's been compromised, perhaps there is someone or several someones working to actively seduce him whether through ambition or lust or both - and the upshot is...

  • Anne/Jealous Anne/Stella (no, not Anne. She needs a name that means constancy without being Constance...although Constanza might work...could that be worked into being a boy's name? Right, so what's the name in simple English that'll do the trick?) takes on a fourth persona: she disguises herself as - we'll go with Constanze, a young Italian courtier - replete with a questionable backstory - who causes quite an uproar in the court. I'm not sure how. But the main thing is...

  • While Astrophile has been surrounded by the corrupt Privy Counsellors, he has in fact been in some considerable danger. Although he has come home every night to his wife, and been indeed constant to her, and has never ceased to love her - yet by the very fact that those around him revile her and eat away at his time with her, they have grown more distant. I think the seduction he must be under is not a physical mistress but the fickle mistress fortune. (Perhaps tragedy struck their fortunes which is why he had to attach himself more "constantly" to his government work?)

  • Which is to say that Astrophile has obviously been "in" on Anne/Jealous Anne/Stella - I'm not so sure he's "in" on Constanze. (Yes, yes, I know - Merchant of Venice etc. etc. Look, I'm just off of Shadowplay, OK? ;P) I think, however, the other Privy Counsellors would make passes as her - at least one would, and others might try to align her with their daughters - while she endeavours to grab her husband and make him recognize her again.

  • In the final scene, of course, everything is revealed and the happy couple are happy and in love and in their correct places again (which is to say, not imprisoned by society's twisted "norms"), with the promise of Felicity and Peter doing well for themselves in a rustic (pastoral - ha ha!) setting.

  • There ought to be more. I'm sure other things will crop up in the writing of it - and I want the lovers (Anne and Astrophile) to be found kissing in the closet by the astounded and outraged Privy Council - mostly for its French farciness as well as other obvious connotations. Perhaps the whole thing will itself be called Shadowplay or Constanze or who knows what. One thing concerns me, though - although I don't know if it need...

  • I had originally conceived the idea as Astrophile's piece - but it has, in outline, anyway, become Anne's. Am I happy with this? Is the story happier with it? I think, perhaps so - at least at this juncture. Certainly, Anne's would be a wonderfully juicy role to play! And I think, as I've blogged before, that part of modern feminism and "free love" and all the ruination of the family and current licentiousness is due in large part to the fact that women have lost sight of who they are and the inherent dignity and beauty of being a woman - what being a woman really means. Perhaps, even more than the idea of a married couple remaining faithful to one another, I'm interested in the role a woman plays as herself and in her various incarnations and reincarnations as daughter, wife, mother, etc. How do all these faces merge into one complete woman? What happens to the woman who tries to be a man in a man's world and so sacrifices her femininity? But I want to make sure that Anne/Stella/Constanze or even Felicity or Elizabeth (if she even makes an appearance) don't eclipse Astrophile at least as a dramatic character. Granted, as Anne transmogrifies - selling her love and then selling herself before finding herself again and so regaining her lost love and her own constancy to herself - she weakens her husband by assuming his role. But even so, I don't want to completely lose Astrophile. My hope, at least dramatically, is to create as many juicy parts to play as possible. I hope I am capable of doing so.

  • O! For a Muse of fire! Or at least O for that Chimaera of Free Time.

    Mood: My nose is cold again, my back sore and my right calf threatening to Charlie horse. Bah. But my brain is running a million miles a minute - so some part of me is lithe.
    Music: Had been the second Buffy album, but will most likely be Our Endless Numbered Days by Iron and Wine in a second
    Thought: What? The above brain-drizzle wasn't sufficient?

  • Thursday, October 27, 2005

    Raindrops on roses

    And bags 'neath my eyes
    Mishaps at practice
    And brains that are fried
    Brown paper lunch bagses
    Strewn 'cross my room -
    All of these signs
    That the winter play looms....

    Splinters - trees - blunt swords unblunting - knees bending in scissorkicks - toes that won't point - sports sports sports - three and a half dances left to go and bits of all the others - plug in new folk old folk sport folk sick folk - keys locked inches beyond reach - and a car engine that decided to give up on the way back home - and another, lent, that stalls, sputters and dies at green lights when one is late to work due to unseasonable frost.

    Dear God...Amen.

    Mood: *flop*
    Music: Nada
    Goodness is: Sue R. coming in and putting all of life in perspective. Thank God for wise women who minister through their very being!

    Sunday, October 23, 2005

    Muppet Weekend Update

    Cows are falling from the sk...*crunch*

    OK, OK, no cows. Chickens. Loads 'o. And the occasional tuna. With a side of salad. And if not from the sky, then at least from the upper cabinet and/or fridge. (Of course, that still doesn't explain the anchorman trembling in the crash position beneath our kitchen table, but...a fella's got to have his hobbies, one supposes.)

  • Have discovered the joy of heating pads that can be stuck on (relatively well; masking tape is our friend) to various bits of the body that are hurting to such an extreme that I really cannot describe, except to say that I actually took Friday off to recoup and have not yet, even as of tonight. Currently have one on each ankle, and am debating putting one on the left hip, which is apparently feeling left out since last night the right hip got the nifty new heating pad (rock thingy. Dunno how it works, merely that it does).

  • Am in said pain (poot poot!) due to two glorious nights of dancing. And upon reviewing the rehearsal footage, I was pleased to find that overall the actors are picking up the grand waltz fairly well. We'll be even better when on the stage itself, i.e., when not so cramped on the masking tape racing track of my classroom floor (see! Masking tape cures all ills!).

  • We're, what? A month and a week or two 'til performance? Usual mid-way panic is setting in, alleviated by a few things: 1) Mass. Mass mass mass Eucharist holy priest belting-out-loud brother Johnny and mass; 2) Wonderful Jules who drives stir-crazy sisters on errands to CVS for heating pads; 3) Reviewing lots and lots and lots of old footage of shows and saying: "Hey! That one had the worst dress ever and it looks good! Hey! That one had the worst dresses ever and it looks good! Hey! That one I choreographed that number two days before show and it looks good! Hey! That one the leads hated each other and it looks good! Hey! That was my first real show and it looks great! Hey! I think I'll stop fretting and make a trailer for that first real show! Hey - that trailer looks downright swell! Hey! I've been sufficiently distracted that I managed to have a day fret-free! Hurrah!"

  • Oh, and I think I've watched every single version of the Nutcracker I can get my hands on (not to mention a handful of other ballet-themed movies - let's just say: much fastforwarding to get to the dance-y bits because the acting/writing/directing bits are just too painful to contemplate). The hope from this? Their Intradas aren't perfect either! I now have a better idea of how to amp mine! *breathes deeply and intones to self in Zen-like mantra-state* "Gonna make it gonna make it."

  • Forgot to mention Magnificat as a source of rest. Today's reflection was particularly helpful. And did I mention the power of the Eucharist? Yeah.

  • On a completely (or at least more tangentally) different note, I've picked up Shadowplay by Clare Asquith which is the latest Shakespeare criticism/biography to hit the charts. In it, she basically attempts to "decode" Shakespeare's Catholic allusions throughout the course of his plays. Since Will and the Word also makes mention of the Elizabethan love of wordplay, coded messages, etc. - especially within the sonnet - I cannot help but submit to the idea that Shakespeare could have included a code within his plays which referred to the current religious upheaval - moreover since it's obvious that Shakespeare's work is profoundly Catholic in basic philosophy/theology - but still, it's difficult for me to look at nearly every one of Shakespeare's speeches or mentions of "high" "low" "fair" "bright" etc. as necessarily coded. This is due to either one or a combination of the following:

    1) As Chesterton says, it is impossible for any man of any faith to completely hide his faith. However, as Tolkien admitted, that doesn't mean that Shakespeare's every word was "Catholic by design" just as Tolkien's original pass through LOTR wasn't consciously Catholic. Shakespeare was writing under a deadline: isn't it possible that some of these so-called allegories (the specific ones, not ness. the overarching Aristotelian "thought") could have been at least subconscious. This is not the denigrate their very existance nor the truth that the subconscious certainly has an effect on one's art - but I simply wonder to what extent Shakespeare was adding these "coded words."

    2) Let's assume, however, that Shakespeare is as great a genius as his contemporaries and every blessed literari has proclaimed since (myself included) and that in addition to writing a ripping good yarn, on deadline, with the actors currently in his troupe, knowing their limitations/peeves/etc., with a limited production budget, and all the other mundanities that go into writing a working script, Shakespeare also managed to sneak in not only Catholic thought (obvious) but Catholic code - still, I wonder as a director, actor and literary (not theological or historical) critic - that is, as an artist - if the "decoding" changes in any particular way the means whereby I would approach the performance (from dramagurgy on) of the piece. Is my interpretation of Midsummer's likely to change knowing that Hermia likely represented Protestantism and Helena Catholicism? Is this something translatable to my audience? How does it alter (almost wrote altar - perhaps an answer in its own punnish self! Or a punishment to its punnish self?) the presentation in any particular?

    3) Which brings me to the question - selfish, I admit - of how much I need to change my own approach to Shakespeare and other literature re: its applicability in a historical context and its immediate application. I admit, that in re: plays - since they are not a finished, immutable art on the printed page in and of themselves - I am perhaps far too practical. Or perhaps it's only because I agree with Shakespeare's Catholic worldview that this "revelation" seems simply a tired and overargued case? Is it that I am not awed by his insight into theology and history because I have grown too numb to his immediate observations, smuggled past the censors of his day?

  • Anywho, I look forward to finishing the rest of her argument and then rereading the plays - in particular those which seem "unplayable" and hence which I imagine will benefit best from her reading of the deeper meaning of the play itself. Elsewise, I'm spoiling for the return of my Firefly DVD's.

  • And now to bed. Good night, dear older Emily! Lord, bless and keep me! And bless and keep those for whom I have been asked to pray. And bless my students and my actors and my coworkers. Keep safe my family. Keep me close to You and recreate in me a heart of flesh. Draw me to You, Lord! Keep me ever in Your Heart. Amen!

    Mood: Cold nose but pas mal
    Music: Josh Groban's first CD - bombastic in places but oh so pretty voice!
    Happiness is: My very own Promethian moment! I do not have any lectures lined up for tomorrow for which I would have to stand on my poor little feet! Presentations and Prince of Egypt! Now, what was that about the lilies of the field?

  • Sunday, October 16, 2005

    Latest thought:

    Oscar by Claude Magnier and reinterpreted in 1991 for the underrated but hilarious Sly Stallone film of the same name. Just one problem: although the original play is most likely copyright free...it doesn't seem to be at all available in the US. At this point, I'm thinking of checking out France's Amazon, buying in Euros, kidnapping the French-speaking Latin teacher and translating the dumb thing. *shakes head* The things we do....

    Maybe I'll see if Anouilh has any more comedies after all. (Or heck, I'll just do the four act long retelling of the Oedipus myth: The Infernal Machine. Geesh.)

    Mood: The living area's a mess. Must - clean - !
    Music: Music from Buffy (seasons 5-7)
    Thought: Family from Delaware is wonderful and mucho fun.

    Saturday, October 15, 2005

    In lieu of the past several weeks

    one will be subjected to the SpeedJournal, a la Randominity.

  • Oliver Twist CD on, music by Rachel Portman. Thus far, up to Ms. Portman's usual standard, although not as daring as Chocolat (but then, as a period piece, it doesn't need to be). Alas, I missed the film in the theatres - in part because when given an option, I felt that it probably would be just as seeable on the small screen for less money, whereas Serenity was most likely best on the big screen - however I bought the CD sight (sound?) unseen (ear has not seen, eye has not heard!) which is, I suppose, the mark of a good composer. Now, granted, a Rachel Portman CD is going to always sound like a Rachel Portman CD - whereas John Williams, for all everyone poo-poos him, doesn't always sound like John WIlliams (see his retro-chromatic-jazz-isms with Spielberg, such as on Catch Me If You Can) - but it's comforting to know that Rachel Portman will sound more or less like herself. Its as though each album is simply the next movement in the overarching symphony of her musial career. So, yay for Rachel Portman. (And wonderings about her short-lived musical - now on tour? - Little Women. Although I love Portman's music, I can't quite think of it with lyrics....)

  • This past two weeks or so, I have converted to Burgar King mainly for their Angus Burger with mushrooms. "A shortcut!" "A shortcut to what?" "Mushrooms!" Which in no way explains why I tried the triple Whopper today except that I must be getting adventurous in my quarter age.

  • Much to my surprise, my piano playing and sight reading are improving. Proof that practice actually makes a difference. Proof, too, that although I advocate practice it took me two years to figure that one out for myself. Proof, finally, that I didn't do my own piano teachers service whilst I was under their tutelage. Mea culpe. Ah, the things one learns when on the other end of the proverbial chalkboard!

  • Rain rain, go away.... Fortunately, the condition of the roads is still good, but a week or more worth of rain a very angry Emily makes. And one can't kick rain. Stupid rain.

  • Came home yesterday with a prodigious headache, compliments of stress, lack of sleep, lack of caffine, lack of sleep, nearly 72 hours spent almost exclusively at school, resulting in lack of sleep, compounded by lack of sleep. Hence, upon returning home, and without passing go to collect 200 mg of advil or tylenol, I went to sleep; woke to watch Alias and have dinner (rice and curry are my friends), and then to sleep. Woke around 3 a.m. and went to sleep. Repeat at 7 a.m. and again at 9 a.m. Woke for real about 10 a.m. feeling enormously better. And now am sipping caffine a la my poison of choice. Moral, ladies and gentlemen? It's play season and sleep is a rare and precious commodity.

  • In the "I trust I make myself obscure" category: had a rather...interesting...anxiety dream last night. Now, nothing unusual about the dream itself per se - or rather, what anxiety was in the limelight - but unusual in the subplot, into which I will not greatly delve. However, the mainplot (or the subplot, depending on how much of a romantic you are), revolved around the increasing anxiety over finding another play for the spring show. Cue segue.

  • The Saga of the Spring Show (Note: The following has been edited to fit a public blog. Any repetitions from previous blogs are the result of the author not bothering to sift though her previous articles. Deal.) Last year, towards the last few weeks of rehearsals for KOF, I was so fed up with the divadom happening in the cast, that I decided that our winter show would be Wilde's The Importance of Being Ernest. But, as time passed after KOF, I realized that I just didn't have the heart to make cuts in the drama department and that since I had more than eleven actors, I wouldn't do Ernest after all.

    So, the search for a winter play began. I was trying to find something with the following criteria:

    1) About twenty speaking roles
    2) Morally sound
    3) Two hours or less
    4) Low to non-existant royalties

    I found ziltch. All the good plays were twelve or so actors with no real room to expand (e.g., Moliere, Wilde, etc.). Or, if it had a ton of actors, it would play about three hours long (e.g., Wilder, Auntie Mame). If it was bad, it was bad and I coudn't bring myself to do it (e.g., half of the Baker's plays). Or, it fit all the criteria, but just wasn't "right" for the school (e.g., Murder in the Cathedral).

    So I brought up the question to my actors, and tentatively mentioned that we could do Nutcracker - hoping, however, that they wouldn't choose that one, because it would mean I'd have to write it because we are not a ballet school and more, the only version I found of it written out was definitely for elementary or middle schools. Of course, that's what was chosen - and it's good and it all turned out well and everything's settling down and gearing up for it - and I'm sure it's going to be a fantastic play (Dec. 9 & 10 at Marlborough Middle School theatre! Come and see it!).

    Which meant, I thought, that we were all set for this year: Nutcracker and an edited down version of Hamlet. But what I didn't foresee was that there would be contention over Hamlet. (I still don't know why - I mean, I know my kids can do it, we're an acting intensive school, not musical-"acting" but real delve-into-it acting. Why not give them the chance at the greatest play ever written in the English language? I just don't get it. But then.... *sigh*) So, to appease TPTB (as they say in the Angelverse), I've been searching for another play. Criteria slightly different and something like this:

    1) Please, God, not a musical - for the following reasons:

    ...a) While we have the female voices in spades, we don't have the male voices.

    ......i) But My Fair Lady only needs one good male voice (Freddy - noooo! Spare us from the Freds!)! Yeah, but it only has one worthwhile female lead. No go.

    ......ii) But Annie only needs one good male voice (Rooster) and it's FULL of girls! Yeah, but the Arts Alliance is doing it this summer. It wouldn't be couth. (Esp. since they've been good enough to lend us body microphones this past year!)

    ......iii) But The Sound of Music only needs one good male voice (the boyfriend of Leisl whose name escapes me now - wanna bet it's Fritz or something?)! Yeeeeeeeah...if I had to do a musical, this is the only one I can think of that might fit our criteria (albeit the stage version isn't half as good as the film, which is in itself an issue). But then we run into the reasons Why We Should Not Do A Musical At All:

    ...b) The cost - everyone forgets to factor in the cost of the orchestra. It's an expense that a play simply doesn't come with. More, royalties for musicals, particularly good ones, tend to be steeper than royalties for good plays (let alone mediocre or classic ones!).

    ...c) The time - to put on a musical (or to put one on WELL), we need a good solid three months. And that's with three hour rehearsals, minimum. (There's been a rehearsal time issue that we're dealing with now.) Because people need to learn their lines, learn their blocking, learn their characters AND learn the music and learn the dancing AND act through it all. AND we have to rehearse the orchestra and then rehearse the orchestra with the cast and.... It can be done more efficiently the more people take charge - if there's separate music, stage and dance heads - but at HCH there's only me. If we hired separate directors, the cost would be treble what it costs now. (Plus the musicians, plus all the OTHER costs...it adds up.) And it takes more time for HCH anyway, because we're simply not a musical theatre school. That's not our strength - nor, and I stress this, need it be. *sigh* Anywho.... So, rehearsal time is a factor.

    ...d) The length of the show. Everyone was upset because KOF ran two and a half hours which, when added up with the obligatory ten-fifteen minute hold due to audienc who refuses to believe that curtain up at 7:00 means curtain up at 7:00 and persists in their belief that that or later is the arrival time, as well as the verity that there's No Such Beast as a Fifteen Minute Intermission (what with bathroom lines and little Bobby who MUST have his cookie!), any given musical (with a literal handful of exceptions) will run all-told three hours. For some reason, this was An Issue for the audience at HCH who is, apparently, not used to musical-length shows. If we do another musical, i.e., The Sound of Music, it's going to be the same deal.

    ...e) More specifically to HCH, as an acting school, we've become an ensemble school. Our actors are happiest when we're doing a play which lends itself more to ensemble work rather than a musical which breeds divas - either among the three worthwhile roles or among the denizens of the much-lamented chorus. NO DIVAS!!! Shall I repeat it? I WILL HAVE NO DIVAS!!! *huff huff huff*

    2) Soooo...what play is there out there that fits our new criteria?

    ...a) The play must be two hours long or shorter.

    ...b) I've been told that TPTB want a modern play (aka, I believe, a play set post 1914, not one merely written post 1914. Although perhaps the desire is for both).

    ...c) Written by a known author. (Amen to that fair prayer say I!) And preferably, I'm guessing, a known play by said known author.

    ...d) That is funny. (I'm going on gut instinct here. I think part of the objection to Hamlet is the thought that it's a tragedy and we don't want a tragedy. But it IS awfully funny, and the last act is all about grace. Anywho....)

    ...e) And can encompass twenty or so actors, has good roles for women, can be feasibly rehearsed in a mere two and a half months with significant interruptions, and is morally sound (my criteria).

    3) Unfortunately, while I've been beating my brains out reading plays again, like I did already last spring/summer (one of my frustrations: I've done this! I've not not done this! Gah!), I'm coming up against, surprise surprise, the same difficulties I did last time. Only now my criteria are even more restricting. Regardless, I've looked at the following plays:

    ...a) Aunt Mame had potential, because it has a HUGE cast, but upon rewatching it and then reading the racier script, it doesn't fit the morally sound aspect. Not to mention that although the female parts are great, the male parts are blaugh. And the set *shudder* how in the world could I manage that set? And it's looooong.

    ...b) Our Town has a HUGE cast, is morally sound...and is three acts long. I've been in it. A three hour play? Uuuuuuuuuugh. The set would be no problem (what set?), but, frankly, it's kinda boring. It's still an option, but...meh.

    ...c) Do a series of one acts or chamber theatre pieces, a la How to See a Bad Play - except that it'd take writingish on my part and as an experimental piece, I don't know how it would go down. It would also isolate the actors into Just Their Piece rather than ensemble bonding. Again, it's an option but perhaps a little advant garde - and how in the world would one advertise it?

    ...d) I've also looked at Wilde's other plays, but although I love, for example, Ideal Husband it isn't as funny as I recall. I thought about Moliere's The Hypochondriac after all - but it ends so weird, I don't know if it'd work. Peter Pan is an option, but it isn't half as good as the book and again only has one worthwhile female role that's of any length. I'm wondering if it isn't worth it to just take a short story - Alice in Wonderland, etc. - and chamber theatre the heck out of it - with narrator and all - but that would mean writing again and I'm trying not to write. I can't really get behind O'Neill, Coward, Brecht, Shaw (Pygmalion is doable but has still, only one worthwhile female role), or *shudder* Miller (Crucible is lots of females, but hardly funny, and FOUR FREAKING ACTS LONG!!!).

    4) Look, I'm trying my hardest not to fight for Hamlet. Trying to give up the - no pun intended - ghost of it, as it were. But...gah. Anywho. Praise God. It'll all work out. Meeting Wed. hopefully. Hopefully more clarity then.

  • Which brings me back to my dream: I was dreaming that I was holding auditions for the Spring play, that was still up in the air. But we were reading from Hamlet (except that it included passages from Romeo and Juliet) when I realized that another teacher had a good singing voice (a la a student suggestion). So I said, "Ah ha! We can do Fiddler on the Roof! And then it turned out that Zero Mostel (sp?) was actually teaching next door at St. Mike's and so I ran over and begged him to play Tevier again, but he grandly said those days were over. Then I woke up and said, "Ah ha! I could do Fiddler!" But then I realised that a) I need more than one good male voice which I don't have b) although I love the play it, too, is three or three and a half hours long c) it's not just a sing-y play...it's very very dancey. Bah.

    So I went back to sleep and we were rehearsing, apparently Hamlet and Juliet and for whatever reason I was Ophelia/Juliet which was weird because I was in the scene and unable to see whether it looked good from the front, much less whether I was any good. However, the way the play was going had an interesting love triangle? Quadrangle? And some good blocking which I still remember. *sigh* But it was odd because of the subplot which, the time being nearly time for me to drag Jules off to Elizabethtown, I will not expand upon.

  • Otherwise, despite some shaking about in the cast due to conflicts, schedules, etc. I think we're going to do well and have a great show. Praise God! And now to see something that I am absolutely not in charge of. How nice.

    Mood: The tip of my nose is freezing. How weird is that?
    Music: Regarde en haute.
    Thought: Still need to write Whedon rebuffs. However, managed to sneak him into one of my religion classes, much to the delight of one of my fellow Firefly-fans.

  • Monday, October 03, 2005

    Back Jack

    Hurrah! Johnny Depp explains what many of us know about characters (from E-online):

    "Why is he doing [the Pirates sequels]? Depp admitted he's making these sequels for selfish reasons: He just misses Jack. 'It's a very strange situation, where as a grown man, you start having separation anxiety with an imaginary character. It's worrisome because you know it's not normal, but you can't stop yourself. I just like the guy. He's a pal. I was so excited to come back and do two and three, because I just wanted to meet up with him again.'"


    Yeah.

    Mood: Here in town you can tell he's been down for a while
    Music: But my God, it's so beautiful when the boy smiles
    Thought: And breathe....

    Oh yeah

    Resolutions made
    Freedom riders arise again
    A subtle orange sticker
    Imbedded and ingrained
    A choice, good sir,
    Democracy, not tyranny
    Glory, not mundanity
    Fearlessness, not joylessness
    Victory, even on Nike's barren wings
    A shadowplay nobler in the mind
    And written in the swirling script
    Of Heavenly graffiti

    Mood: Oh, Lord....
    Music: "Beautiful Day" from the verboten CD
    Thought: Hwell, the Chinese dance went brilliantly! :D