To Nugget Monkeys... An abridged (yet extremely long) explanation of my idea.
SURE THING
Well, BASICALLY here was my plan.
(It's actually a lot more complicated than this, but it all makes plenty of sense in my head.)
SET: Turn two-person cube on its side so that top faces audience. Put two one-person cubes on top of that cube, next to each other with tops facing audience. Actors would then use this not really as a table, but more as a bar area. It is to be implied that they are seated behind that, even though in reality they are standing. (There was really no other way for me to create a table and chairs with blocks of equal height, so that was my solution. Also, I think that having them face the audience instead of each other adds to the awkwardness of the situation. It also allows for the goal of getting the other to make eye contact, which would not be a struggle if they were sitting at a normal table.) USL, a window. It has a ledge on it, where it would be possible to place a bell or two. (Set may be changed mid-play, by having the actors move the small cubes down and sit on them. Haven't decided whether I can use that to serve the script or not.)
ACTORS: Two men, both playing Bill. Two women, both playing Betty (plain costumes, same for each member of the pair to make transitions easier on the audience). Betty1 and Bill1 start the scene. Betty2 and Bill2 stand by the window ledge, observing (There are actually good reasons metaphorically for putting the window there, but I'll spare you the explanation). At the cues when a bell is to ring (at a beat change) and a character is to switch tactics, have their counterpart ring the bell, signifying an "I can do better" emotion, and then switching in. So when the first problem occurs with the encounter, Bill2 rings the bell, and he and Bill1 switch places. When the problems stem from Betty, then the women switch. A couple of times, both switch. I felt that this would add an interesting element of competition and building between the two actors playing each character. This is particularly true when Bill has quickly changed responses... I planned to have the two Bills fight over the chair (and the bell) during the fast beats places, such as "Straight-down-the-ticket Republican. (ding) Straight down the ticket Democrat. (ding) Can I tell you something about politics? (ding) I like to think of myself as a citizen of the universe. (ding) I am unaffiliated." I also was planning on at least one point when the Betty at the table, obviously unhappy, grabbed a bell and rang it so that the Bills would switch (after the line "One of them's pregnant, and Stephanie...").
I had it worked out very well, too. I used the times when both of them switch to help it get the pairings correct. The times when they were SO CLOSE to it working but it didn't were between Bill2 and Betty2. The times when it was least cohesive were between Bill1 and Betty1. And in the end, Bill2 and Betty2 find happiness together. (While they're by the window, I planned for the Bills and Bettys to still act toward each other as they would have at the table. While the 1s are fighting at the table, the 2s are flirting upstage. This provides an excuse for why some of the bad exchanges last as long as they do: the bell-ringers are distracted.)
Also, by having the alternate Bill and Betty ring the bells, I get around my limit on sound cues (since they would be from onstage, it's okay). Unfortunately, I can't really use lights to help indicate the switches since I am allowed so few cues, but I think I'd be able to get the point across in other ways.
I had almost completely worked out the Root Conflict Analysis, I felt I had a decent directorial concept (which, of course, I would have had time to improve upon), and I really understood the plights of the characters.
Anyway, I quickly proposed the idea of doing this play to my Professor this afternoon. He looked like he was considering it, and then said "Interesting... Yes, that's very interesting... Hmm... No. This production will be complicated enough. Doing something that isn't realism is only going to make it harder on you. Trust me. It's too difficult. Find something else."
The thing is, realism is a lot harder for me. My theatrical background is mostly as a playwright, not a director, and the things I write are structurally-based comedies (I mess with the boundaries of time and space a great deal. I like it when the past and present occur simaltaneously, or when characters in the same time and place argue about where they are and when it is). None of my writing has ever been realism. I honestly understand Theatre of the Absurd far more than standard works. "Waiting for Godot" makes a lot more sense to me than "Of Mice and Men". So while he thinks this type of play would make the directing too difficult, I see it as the only way that I'm going to have any clue as to what the heck I'm doing. (Not that I'm going to be good at it anyway.)
I really want to DIRECT this, not just STAGE it. I want to create a production, and not just be a traffic cop telling the actors where to stand. I want to make strong choices, and for every choice I make to have an actual purpose behind it, rooted in the script. That makes everything a heck of a lot harder (especially since I'm a first-time director. Perhaps I'm over-thinking this. I just really want it to be good. And not just for the grade. I want to prove to myself that I can direct a show that is worth seeing.)
Although it might be in vain, I think I'm going to continue working on my "Sure Thing" ideas over the weekend, and type up a full proposal of it. Then, I'll go to his office hours on Monday and say, "if I can prove to you that I can do this, and do it well, will you let me try?"
I figure that at this point, I have nothing to lose.
Wish me luck.
I starred in a short film called
Magnetic Personality. Check it out!
Updated On: 9/10/04 at 02:47 AM
.jpg?format=auto&width=300)
.png?format=auto&width=365)
