Essay Thoughts

“It is probably true, in general terms, that adaptation forms a substantial part of what is encompassed in dramaturgy, and has always done so, as it is also true that any active Script-maker is also a Dramaturge.” -Graham Ley.

 

Anyone who choses to adapt something from one medium to the other, will encounter problems that need dramaturgical skills to help solve it.  Adapters use forms of dramaturgy in their work constantly, from researching the source text thoroughly, to exploring the world of the play in new settings that they are being adapted for.  I will be studying the connections between Adapter and Dramaturge in reference to two plays, Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, and Emil Sher’s Mourning Dove.  Though on first glance, these plays seem not to have much in common, (different themes, stories, eras, countries) they are linked through the fact that both Miller and Sher are adapting famous historical court cases for the stage, and in doing this, they are using their dramaturgical skills to accomplish it.

Key points to focus on:

Research of historical documents

Troubleshooting issues, putting the impossible on the stage

choosing things to adapt due to relevancy in our current time

 

 

Troubleshooting

Adapting Flannery O’Connor’s “The Lame Shall Enter First” is a challenge that I take on heartily.  But there are issues arising left and right that force me to step back, take a look at the project, and decide how to proceed.  These issues have to deal with staging, scene sequences, and time.

 
“The Lame Shall Enter First” is written in a rather familiar story arch.  One that works perfectly for a short story, but for a play, it can seem tiresome and rather boring.  The scenes are long, and descriptive, and because it is meant to be read and not acted, the characters are easily transported from location to location.  Writing it for the stage we do not have this luxury.  All ready we have a problem of too many scenes; cuts need to happen.  Solution?  I created one setting for many of the scenes to take place at.  This setting did not appear in the original text, but for the overall function of this play, it works best to have the audience guided back there, to watch the story unfold.  This setting I created was an interrogation room, all ready this brings up a lot of imagery and atmosphere to work from.  Another setting I created for the shape of the play was the kitchen, a sort of central communal meeting area for a family.  Lastly, I kept the original setting of an attic.  These three rooms will set the drama for our play.  Now we have the bare bones.

 

Because this “short story” is relatively long, some scenes needed to be cut.  This required reading the text and deciphering what plots lines could be dropped with still maintaining the overall theme of the play.  There are several scenes in the original that I felt acted as “background information”, things to happen before the actual action of the play.  And because of this, I cut them, hoping that the audience will understand the characters through their dialogue as apposed to adding a scene merely for exposition.  There is also a story line about one of the character’s physical deformities, which I did not entirely take out, but modified, so that a little bit of this scene is separated into all the scenes.  Thus, still getting a glimpse into this character’s struggle.

 

Lastly I have the issue with time; what decade to set this play in.  In the original it is set in the early 60’s, and this is clear from the language of all characters.  Do I keep it in the 60’s, or try to modernize it for our time?  I have tried the latter.  This has especially been difficult for the character “Rufus”, who is a 14 year old boy grown up living on the streets.  O’Connor’s language is so fitting for him it seems a shame to change all of his dialogue, or to modernize him for 2012.  I have done my best to keep him genuine.  How would Rufus sound if he had grown up in small town America, without much money, or education?  He wouldn’t sound as hard as those same kids growing up in a metropolises, his language would definitely be altered by the culture of his times.  Hopefully I have made his character as honest sounding as he can be.

 

The first draft of “The Lame Shall Enter First” is finished.  But I’m sure its revision and edits will bring about more challenges to overcome.  “Plays are not written, but rewritten.”

Starting at the Beginning.

Adaptation is no easy task.

 

What are you going to do adapt?  Why this? Why now?  Are you going to be saying something new through your adaptation that was not said in the original? Are you changing the form in which this original piece takes places, ie. book to film?  Is your adaptation being used to bring forth inequalities and possible discrimination within the source text?  Is your adaptation taken from more than one source?  Is your adaptation asking the audience to reconsider a position they had on a famous literary classic?  Are you just adapting something because really you have no imagination or creativity, and it’s much easier to alter someone else’s work than come up with something new these days?….. (okay that last one was a little harsh).

 

Let’s start at the beginging shall we?

 

What am I adapting?  Flannery O’Connor’s short story “The Lame Shall Enter First”, which is found in her collection of short stories entitled “Everything That Rises Must Converge”.

 

What are you adapting it into? A short play.

 

And here is the big question, why?

 

I have always loved the style of Flannery O’Connor.  She has a way of writing that engulfs you into her stories; into her uses of metaphor, into her search for spirituality, morality, and ethics.  This specific story “The Lame Shall Enter First” encompasses all of these things.  This story centres around Sheppard, a man who is unable to sympathize with his son’s grief over the death of his mother a year ago, and so instead spends all his energy helping a juvenile delinquent, Rufus.  To Sheppard helping the less fortunate is the purpose of life, and though Sheppard is an atheist, he is focused soley on his duty to “save” this young man from his doomed future.  The story turns sour for Sheppard as we learn that Rufus does not want to be saved, and further more Rufus believes in a spiritual world where only Jesus can save him, not Sheppard.  O’Connor brings up the all time struggle of science verses religion, and suggests that moral thinking begins with authentic compassion rather than a false sense of “doing good.”  I was drawn to this theme of faith versus reason, as well as the three compelling and complex characters O’Connor has created.  Also, I love theatre.  The medium of theatre is one of the only ones (apart from a concert) where we are apart of a communal experience of people.  The audience connects all together to experience one performance, and to, in essence, see ourselves on the stage.  I believe theatre also has the power to make us empathetic to situations in which we wouldn’t normally feel empathy for.  We experience the show with the actors on stage, we become the characters, and through this we get to understand a situation from another point of view.  Theatre is different than sitting down and watching a movie, here we are seeing something happen instantaneously, in real life, and in real time.  We have no medium or screen to separate us from the action, it becomes harder and harder to become detached.  I’ve experienced show’s where I am literally holding my breath; I have become so encapsulated with the performance, so engulfed in it’s characters.  I read “The Lame Shall Enter First” and I can see it on the stage.  I can see the audience members holding their breath, expectantly waiting for the next line, waiting to see what will win out in the end, faith or reason, or maybe a mixture of both.  I can feel our empathy rising for the characters we would most like to judge, and see the layout of how this haunting short story can be displayed in all its glory on the stage.  All of this stirs in me an excitement for my work; a chance to show others what I can see so beautifully in my imagination.

 

Let’s get started.

 

worth noting and knowing.

The Red Thread:

“I set up a certain dramaturgical structure (a generator), which might, for example, be based on a timeline of a certain emotion. Once this generator is clear to all of us, we use it as an anchor to hold the rest of the elements together, a red thread that runs through the process and the performance and to which everyone can relate. A good dramaturg for my process is someone who manages never to lose sight of this red thread.”

– Andrea Bozic

 

The Material:

“The word ‘material’ to me seems crucial for the debate about the ‘future of texts’. This ‘material’ provides us not only with ideas, questions and themes but also with images, actions and, last but not least, something to do and to say on stage.”

“A dramaturg is a person involved not only in tracking down interesting material but also in shaping and trimming it, condensing and reducing it.”

– Christian Holtzhauer

 

The Improv. Dramaturg:

“My role as a dramaturg was to be the audience, the ideal spectator. This meant, to a great extent, to insist on reduction; on identifying what was the least necessary to articulate; and then to argue for doing even less than that. Or the opposite. What is thought to be clear frequently is not. Modifications had to be made in different registers; visual, sonorous, structural.”

– Bent Holm

 

History re-writes

The canon of literature.  What do we mean by that?  In my mind a canon composes the best (whatever we judge this by) and the most famous pieces of art.  All together this canon serves to tell us multiple stories about the human condition.  We call these “classic tales”:  Boy meets girl, boy looses girl, boy make bold gesture of love to girl, and eventually boy wins girl.  They are stories we can relate to: Man with wife and children are poor, man wants to make a better life for his family, man decides to gamble family earnings to double income, man looses it all.  They are stories about politics, about families, about wars and tragedies, about the hopeless, and about the hopeful.  We see their stories as we see our own, little glimpses into the lives of each and every one of us.  We all want to watch a play where we see ourselves on stage, where we are the main character fighting to make it through the depression, the divorce, the lay off, the adultery, and into the place where we find peace, forgiveness, joy, and love.  I think there are common forces that drive us all to the theatre, and in the canon of plays (which we call the classics) we can see these universal themes.  Though I am not fond of that word, “universal”, I mean by it that some stories have spanned not only geography and society, but also the test of time.  These classic tales still mean something to audiences today as the day they were written.  But there is still more to be said from these scripts.  An adapter can take these plays, rebuild them, and arrive at a new piece of work that can rival its counterpart.  Susan Jonas in Aiming the Canon at Now states that she does this often, with the desire to reveal the source text’s own biases about gender, as well as race, sexual preference, and other issues and sensitivities.  It is true that there is always another side to any story.  Jonas says that she rewrites plays not to specifically find a new meaning, but to give a voice to the silenced.  For her this canon of literature does not always bring up happy stories of “universal truths”, but instead stories where one side is voiced louder than the other, and minorities are rarely given the respect they deserve.  Jonas says that she not only re-envisions these plays, but she argues with them, and in the end, infiltrates the very heart of their world.  This is a completely new concept to me.  Should we be adapting plays to (in essence) re-write them for the characters and issues that have been over looked and put to shame, or prehaps not even brought up at all?  Oscar Wilde said, “our one responsibility to history is to rewrite it.”  Does this also translate to our canon of literature?  Taking Jonas’s approach opens up all new ways of thinking and avenues to take our adaptations.  We should be using the canon as a point of reference for our own work and our re-writes.  By looking at the past, Jonas states, we can see where we came from, where we are now, and how we got there.  There is more to be done than simply taking a play and adapting it for a new generation, we have a responsibility as artists to bring forth those issues of inequality, whether they be based on race, gender, or sexual preference. There is always something new to say.  Let us be bold and say it.

 

Those who cannot remember the past are condemed to repeat it. -George Santayana