| Author | Post |
|---|
theatralite
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31st, 2007 12:29 pm |
|
I have a one-act play which was favourably received by a local semi-pro group but that were keen on having it extended to full length with a promise of possible production next year.
Now I had already extended the ending and indeed offered two or three different endings. This required some re-writing in the early part of the play to make each viable.
They still seem keen but are politely insisting I extend it.Frankly I'm reluctant. I think it will weaken the play and resultant in drawing out themes which are only hinted at. They have a surprise/shock value whilst kept short.
Have any of you good people tried to extend a shorter piece? What were the problems? And did it work?
|
in media res
Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31st, 2007 06:20 pm |
|
I have successfullly extended several one-act plays to full-length pieces.
I always believe short pieces can grow to longer pieces. Not necessarily when you want them to. I never felt they were being forced. It is just the story had more to flesh out. It is not a matter of just adding anything on. It must be essential.
It is also a matter of often making it a much different play from the original.
If you look at it as writing a different play than the original, it might open up your mind a bit. You may have to throw some things out of the original play to allow for better stuff in the new play. Don't be tied into holding on to what you have and just adding length. That can be the kiss of death. Think of adding story. Think of what more do these characters have in them? They can be full of surprises!
And, some pieces just do not lend themselves to it. Characters can be just like people sometimes. They just will not cooperate, no matter how much you beg, cajole or threaten or plead. Sharper than a serpents tooth is an ungrateful character.
Speaking of characters, I again recommend renting Will Ferrell's movie "Stranger Than Fiction." He plays a great "character."
best,
in media resLast edited on Sat Mar 31st, 2007 06:22 pm by in media res
|
theatralite
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Apr 1st, 2007 10:59 pm |
|
I think my thoughts were very much along the lines of taking one character and her father who at the moment seems to be the main protagonist but telling her story instead.
Also including the mother who is dead at the start of the one act.
It would be very much a new play based on characters from the original ( or at least some of them.) but ending very differently. I'm very tempted to end in the same location as that would seem appropriate.
Thanks for your ideas they're worth working on.
|
Paddy
Moderator
|
Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 06:02 pm |
|
Personally, I think you should only extend a play, when you aren't finished telling the story, or, as you say, you could tell it from another perspective.
Nice thing though...you can still use the short one as a...well, short one.
Paddy
|
theatralite
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 07:18 pm |
|
Good point.
Though it occurs to me that maybe there are times when to resolve a play or finish the story as you suggest may not necessarily be the best thing.
I seem to recall Caryl Churchill saying that the reason she didn't "finish" her plays was because she believed the audience were quite capable of supplying their own endings.
It didn't matter if these were all different that was their priviledge.
In fact in this particular one act I've written four different endings: one was too sudden, one was pure melodrama and out of keeping with the rest, and of the other two: one tries to partially resolve the conflict but seems overwraught. The one which seems to work the best is left fairly open ended.
the top
|
Anubian Nights Theatre Co
Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 09:17 pm |
|
Don't forget the financial implications of extending a play - the length might take it into a different fee band with the UK ITC (Independent Theatre Council - who set rates for playwrights) which might scare off producers.
I think I have read somewhere on here that writers must write for their markets and always be aware of sensible monetary restrains on creativity.
Regards TKL
|
theatralite
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 11:09 pm |
|
I think the point about markets is an important one not that it should constrain creativity.
One act plays are not commonly done in the UK commercially. Though having said that I'm currently co-directing one third of a suite of plays that started out as a one act play. Though the links between the plays are rather tenuous and each play has a different pair of characters. They are all members of the same family and present at the same event. One acts are essentially the province of amateurs.
The two act play is now more common in professional theatre and indeed some theatres even open to new writing insist on full length plays as first submissions.
Though perhaps it makes sense to view plays as having a "natural" length whatever that is?
|
nic
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 3rd, 2007 11:23 pm |
|
The best advice I ever had when I started writing came from an old playwright who advised me to, 'say what I had to say and then shut up."
The best Nic
|
in media res
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 3rd, 2007 11:58 pm |
|
Keep writing thsoe one act plays!
Thornton Wilder did.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/books/review/McCarter.t.html?ei=5070&en=bed3e2392431e2e6&ex=1176177600&adxnnl=1&emc=eta1&adxnnlx=1175525628-ueCnyHBnvgkpWMwyMK/T7g
|
theatralite
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Apr 6th, 2007 04:11 pm |
|
Thanks for that link.
Interesting article.
|
Poet
Member
|
Posted: Sat Apr 7th, 2007 10:06 am |
|
Theatralite
I think you've possibly answered this question yourself with the simple sentence 'Frankly, I'm reluctant.' I know I couldn't write persuasively or convincingly with a personal 'reluctance' - nor would I enjoy it much and, frankly, when I stop enjoying something, it generally tells me that I ought to stop.
Often, though, in any situation, if I'm faced with only two options, I always like to consider the third one.
Just maybe - is it possible to write a second completely different one-act so that the two could be performed by the same cast, with the same or easily changed set, but as totally different characters with, perhaps, a new perspective on whatever the issues are in the first?
I have something on the blocks myself which is heading in this direction. I have what was intended as the first act of a two-act already written, and I've realised that I've said all I wanted to say by the end of Act 1; the characters took me to the end way before I was ready, and they themselves seem happy with it!
I was considering padding it with another plotline and a couple more cast, but I wanted to stick with a 7 cast (4 women and 3 men) - so I'm seriously considering penning a second, totally different one-act which explores the issue from another viewpoint, and leads the audience (I hope) to a completely different decision (it's a moral dilemma based around a legal issue).
The big benefit I can maybe see in my position is that, depending upon which stance the Director favours, he could play them in either order - and even, by exagerating or playing down two characters' traits in each piece, even bias the final message one way or the other without changing one word in the script.
Just a naive thought from one of the less experienced here...
Last edited on Sun Apr 8th, 2007 06:04 am by Poet
|
Current time is 06:42 am | |
|
