I found this article really interesting. I loved actually getting inside a professional writer’s head and learning about his process and how goes about revision. Revision is an area where I feel like I am a little weak. I definitely feel like I am bad at knowing what to cut and what to change, I really do need to go through it with another person and discuss aspects. Yet, there are often little things that bother me, and I just don’t know how to fix them.
One of the things I really liked was when Peter Shaffer talked about his first revision and explained he did not do it because he wanted to sell more tickets. The show was doing extremely well, selling out every night, people lined up around the block at 6:30 in the morning just to get tickets. And yet, he was not satisfied. He didn’t feel the show was as truthful as it could be. He didn’t feel it was true to the characters, and it just wasn’t right. I really respected that. To him, the play wasn’t about selling seats; it was about telling the story that needed to be told. What I would say to learn from that is a writer needs to carefully read a show and focus on each character. For every moment in the show, he/she needs to really ask themselves, “Would the character actually do that? Would he/she say that?” If you can’t answer yes every time, then something needs to change, even if other people love it. It’s more important to be true to your characters and the story than to please your audience.
Another thing I really liked was how many different ways he tried stuff, not just on paper, but in action. He actually had actors doing the different incarnations of the scene before him, for only then could he really see how it worked. I really appreciate that. I think that it’s hard when you are only writing things down to really know if it’s going to read well on stage. So much of a play is determined by how an actor interprets it/how it sounds out loud. When you can’t actually see the physical, you can’t quite know how it’s going to work. So I guess what I would take away is that if you do drastic revisions you need to get actors to perform it for you. You cannot finalize your play until you see the whole thing performed before you. I guess my only question about that is this: it seemed to me that Peter Shaffer was getting his shows performed in full productions with lights, sets, sounds, etc. (maybe I was misinterpreting the text) but I wonder how different it would be to just do a staged reading. I mean, I suppose it is easier for a writer to really understand if the play is going work if it is seen as a full production, but I think it is sometimes just as beneficial to at least see it in a staged reading.
To sum up: don’t compromise just to sell tickets, see it done live! W00t!
Yes, you're right. He was going to see Ian McKellen star in his show at the Kennedy Center every evening, rewriting all night, bringing him new lines in the morning, watching it again that evening with the new stuff, revising some more, new lines in the morning, etc. That is, indeed, very VERY different from a staged reading. But at the moment, it's all you've got. AND it's good not to have the crutches Ian McKellen and a professional production bring your play. That is, it's good at the beginning to be forced to make it work ON ITS OWN. Not easy. Revision, like every other part of this process, takes practice. The more you do it, the better and better you'll get at it.
ReplyDelete