Wednesday, January 18, 2006
shakespeare made it and he did not have an agent
I am not so sure about this. Isn't the true test of a piece of art its ability to stand the test of time. If a piece has particular interest to a time period, but then little relevance later on, won't it get weeded out in a natural order evolution. This is not to say that every piece that does not make it big is not worthy of it. I am sure there are hundreds of gems that we passed by simply because of the sheer amount of literature being put forth. I know that I do not have time to see it all or read it all. Is it too simplistic to say; "If it really is good, than it will get produced"? Go ahead all ye directors and writers - have at me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
it will never get produced if it doesn't get into the right hands. A lot of playwrights I know write good things but don't show them to enough people or, in some cases, anyone.
I agree, but somone who does not market themself is not the same thing.
BTW - Film Noir was fun to watch, good stuff.
I think that it's not as simple as quality. There was a stunning times story a while back about a playwright whose play had one countless awards but had wound up in Workshop Hell with the play and it had never actually received a full production.
The economy drives a lot more than we'd like to admit. I was saying a while back that, for example, the Times will review a production by one writer, and their next show will not receive a review. The reason for this is often that the Times reviews the publicist, not the playwright.
would we know of beckett today if his wife hadn't run around town telling everyone to do his plays? It's not enough to write a good play. You have to find the right director, the right theatre, the right publicist. The right person has to review it on the right day. And so much of that, and therfore our careers hinge on luck. (or hard work of the marketing kind, or both)
oh and thanks for the nice words on FN
Post a Comment