| Author | Post |
|---|
in media res
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 18th, 2007 01:51 pm |
|
Removed by playwright 10-25-7
Last edited on Fri Oct 26th, 2007 02:56 am by in media res
|
Edd
Moderator
| Joined: | Sat Jun 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Denver, Colorado USA |
| Posts: | 872 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Thu Oct 18th, 2007 03:32 pm |
|
in media res,
What fun! This is a very quick read. Each line moves right into the next thoughtfully and logically. About mid-way through I made a note that said, "interview for Heaven--or Hell?" Not that it was telescoped in any obvious way. It was just the direction in which I would have taken it. (The chronic disease of the playwright.)
On page 4 there were 3 Peters in a row. I had some cute things to say about that, but I'll leave it alone.
It was a dance. It felt like a tango and in my mind that's a very good thing.
During the cell phone conversation I wanted it to end with his saying something like, "Gotta go! There's some crazy motorcyclist who won't get the hell out of my . . ."
I felt that his turning into a demon at the curtain diminished the smart, clever and multi-leveled wit that was your wonderful play.
~Edd
|
Shanahan
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 18th, 2007 05:33 pm |
|
I have to say that this one lost me in the middle when it occured to me (in error, it turned out) that ol' Pete was of the Saintly type, and this was the afterlife, dah dah dah. So I began to skim. That's the only way I got to the very good turn--so I had to go back up a bit and finish reading somewhat. But I'd worry--how much of the audience do you lose at that point where they might think it's a "guy goes to Heaven" play? It may be as simple as changing the name from Peter--a nifty red herring, but perhaps misleading in the wrong direction?
And I'm curious how you see an actor making that "physical transformation into a Demon Run Amok."
|
playfull
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 18th, 2007 11:00 pm |
|
Hi IMR,
I liked this, you have a gift for smooth flowing dialogue.
I have two small reservations however - Peter's longer speech came across as a little too preachy (even though i agreed with his sentiments) and i was so hoping that Farley was going to be accepted into the club - as grounds keeper! I thought this would be a more suitable punishment.
Regards
playfull
|
in media res
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 23rd, 2007 03:13 am |
|
I have also posted the following response under "Reviews and Critiques"
Yet, again, thanks to all for your insightful comments.
That, again, is what this Forum is all about.
Take advantage of it. I have incorporated suggestions from Forum members on everything I have posted since becoming a member. Even the things I originally disagree with can be most enlightening and make me think in another direction. That is what this site is all about.
I think the critiques are top-notch. Believe me, they are as good as any college professor's/teacher's of playwriting, and I know enough of them! (I am not denigrating them, just complimenting you!)
And remember, all the critiques on this site ARE FREE! (If Someone turns out to be a jerk, Paul, edd, or paddy will ostracize them.).
And, I can assure you, the comments on this site are as good as any regional funded theatre world Literary Manager's as you will find. Many of you have read their comments on your own submissions. Am I not correct?! Don't sell yourselves short.
You should all be proud of yourselves and help your fellow playwrights out as you would want to be helped out. As you know, I do my best to help out. I would love to see more posts of new/trial work. And more critiques of the work. It is just damn exciting to read new work.
As "muncy" said so beautifully on another critique, "It is good to know that whenever I want to read good quality contempory theatre, I will always find it on this site. - David”
Just remember, shorter works are easier on this site than longer works, but I and others have critiqued longer works. Sometimes my and other's critiques go through a PM. You can always critique through a PM if you do not want to post publicly on the site. I and others do it all the time. I had several PM's on this piece.
If you have the time, critique the posted works as much as you can, but with the respect and restraint of professionals no matter how many works you have written or had produced. Courtesy is all. Even just a simple "I liked it" is better than nothing. I remembver from the bookd "The World According to Garp," the big publishing magnate would secretly go down and have the Cleaning Lady of his building give a critique to find out how a book would REALLY be received over all the in house professional editors and critics!!!!
Any comment is better than none. For those "guests" who roam around the site...jump in and JOIN as a member! I ne3ver did until it became a well-moderated and overseen Forum.
I have no vested interest in this site, just the promotion of good writing and the respect for the art and craft. And I thank Paul, Paddy and Edd for running a tight ship!
Again, I thank all. And hope you will all post and participate more.
Best,
In media resLast edited on Tue Oct 23rd, 2007 03:14 am by in media res
|
Tom
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24th, 2007 02:55 pm |
|
Stealth-writing! Lots of fun. A saucy idea, shrewd possibilities, interesting ironies. When I finished I was reminded immediately of The Sixth Sense and how I was completely bamboozled by that one too. Afterward I thought back to the various ways I should have seen the ending coming. Perfect setup and a roundhouse punch to close it off. Enjoyed those sly comments like “Golf is the hot sport” “Little warm in here” and so on. I love these lines:
Farley: I hate to brag.
Pete: Please do!
More to that exchange than meets the eye. In fact, you could give a little more air-time to that kind of delicious craftiness, something like,
Farley: Am I making you envious?
Pete: I insist!
I’m also reminded of The Screwtape Letters by CS Lewis, which is a book-length gush of irony about devils. Somebody should make that up into a play, by the way.
The last segment worked fine, setting up the dream angle. But I wonder how it will work dramatically to have two different sets of screams so close together. Should they be equal? One more ghastly than the other? Something to consider.
The current title alludes directly to lovemaking--or I guess puns indirectly on it--which isn’t referenced anywhere in the play. The title is clever, certainly, but it led me to expect something that never got delivered. Maybe even “The Fore! Play” would do it. That would take some of the emphasis off sex and still be clever. Just a suggestion.
I really enjoyed it.
Tom
|
in media res
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25th, 2007 03:13 am |
|
Tom,
I have been a fan of Screwtape Letters since freshman year in High School when we had to read it.
It is being done in NYC right now, by the way. And i think there may ahve bene amovie made of it a few years ago.
https://www.smarttix.com/show.aspx?showcode=SCR1
Thank you for your delicious comments. I look at all comments on this wonderful site and check them against the intentions of my play. Often the ones I disagree with make me really re-think the play.
I appreciate every one.
And, again, thank you to all. Keep posting and keep critiqueing!
Best,
in media res
|
Current time is 06:50 am | |
|
|
|
