Wednesday, April 15, 2009


I found that my play got discussed well in group One. I think that the work in groups is great because as a foreigner, I'm sometimes afraid I might make mistakes while expressing something. But the atmosphere in the group is informal. Everybody has read the play and the comments were very different. Many of them were positive, especially those about the content of "Struggle For Life".

On the other side my tone was criticized as partly antique or too formal and some incoherences in the plot were observed. I'm looking forward to the completion of all the comments tomorrow because I feel that it really helps me, it is a thorough criticism, also not too softened, an opinion Celso published in his blog.

Right now, additionally, I also think that the theatrical or playwright "tools" we learned about are helpful, simple and working. What am I talking about?

I think to probe the logic chronological order of a play, especially plays with many flashbacks, as - for example - Ashley Moreno's "Liar" is very good for the author and for the audience as well. For this purpose, the timeline is a good means.

Then, the questions for ourselves are also rather good. Question 2 "Does each character have an emotional investment in the story's outcome - If not, why not?" helps to find out about character-forming flaws or flat vs. round characters within everyone's play in my opinion.

From the questions I also learned about ruthlessly cutting down on useless parts of the play, self-criticism must be applied in an honest way. But it does not help if others give you the best advice. So I think, everyone should honestly probe his/ her play to see where/ if there are weak points.

No comments:

Post a Comment