My mentor gave me my first critique of the full-length play I wrote in the fall. It is a silly piece combining Beckett, the Bible, and the Marx Brothers. Not literally, but stylistically. (Okay, the Bible, very literally, but not in a good way.)
I didn't use my normal methodology to write it. I normally write character sketches, notes, and several outlines. These can run to ten or fifteen pages total.
For this play, I wrote one brief character sketch and about a page of notes. I've used this method for two other of the fifteen or so full-length scripts I've written. It worked very well, but those were heart driven pieces. They were written out of passion and I knew the characters and where I was going from the moment of conception.
This play was a head piece. The initial starting point was two items in my idea "notebook," and a bit of inspiration from the synthesis. I like the basic idea a lot, but it does not come from my passion, but from my curiosity and that's fine. I've written some excellent pieces this way, but I've always done the footwork before writing. When your process starts with Beckett and the Marx Brothers, chaos seems important and so I let it flow and flow it did. And it was good. But not great. Some great bits, but nothing to hold the whole thing together.
My mentor identified the heart of the story and made some suggestions for rewrites that I am going to follow. I'm excited!
But it does mean research (which I like) and writing character sketches and outlines. I'm not sure my mentor likes this process, but it's the way I work so off we go.
*Joe Orton - Loot
No comments:
Post a Comment