The Sitcom Mission 2011 Page 118

I suspect we could debate this until the cows come home but as a professional actor [well, for a decade] and as a writer, I still say only the writer knows how he/she wants a line read. I had two of my comedy/drama plays produced on London fringe. I stayed down in London for the first week of rehearsals and was well pleased. I went down again a couple of days before opening and was horrified to see one of the cast playing her part OTT and as if she was in a farce, totally not how I had written it plus it was totally out of tune with the other characters that in the storyline were her siblings. I went berserk with the director asking him as to why he had allowed her to do that, thus ruining the whole play. By opening night she had got the character back, as it was originally intended. I can't think what I would have done had I not witnessed it before the opening.

Quote: bushbaby @ May 7 2011, 11:36 AM BST

I suspect we could debate this until the cows come home but as a professional actor (well, for a decade) and as a writer, I still say only the writer knows how he/she wants a line read. I had two of my comedy/drama plays produced on London fringe. I stayed down in London for the first week of rehearsals and was well pleased. I went down again a couple of days before opening and was horrified to see one of the cast playing her part OTT and as if she was in a farce, totally not how I had written it plus it was totally out of tune with the other characters that in the storyline were her siblings. I went berserk with the director asking him as to why he had allowed her to do that, thus ruining the whole play. By opening night she had got the character back, as it was originally intended. I can't think what I would have done had I not witnessed it before the opening.

View original

I'd agree that only the writer knows for sure how they themselves want the line played/read. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily the best way of playing it, or the only way it should be played. And it doesn't mean that it isn't pretty easy for other people to guess. And I'm also saying this as a professional actor of a decade (technically getting on for about fifteen years, but that's for accuracy, rather than one upmanship on your decade!) and a professional writer. I find it an astonishing suggestion in all honesty. The idea that actors are so fundamentally inept at their job that they can't possibly tell how any single line should be delivered without the writer there to guide their way?

And in all honesty... I don't see how that anecdote backs up your point at all. One crap actor who completely misinterprets a role doesn't meant that all actors and directors will inevitably flounder without the writer's guiding influence. I've had people completely misinterpret scenes and characters, sure, but that's the exception. By and large they make it work. Writers have to let go of the idea that the version in their head is necessarily the best one.

Surely the point of your anecdote isn't the one cast member who gets it wrong... but that all the others got it right?

Quote: Griff @ May 7 2011, 12:19 PM BST

We should also bear in mind that with the best will in the world, the scripts for something like the Mission are not Tom Stoppard. There will be ambiguities, there will be unclear characterisation, there will be things which are hard to interpret for the cast because these are early drafts of scripts by new writers. Surely it's better to ask the writer what they meant, if they are available, than to just say "Well tough we're in charge now so we've decided to make that character Swiss" (Which, now it occurs to me, has also happened to me with a sketch once.)

View original

It's equally worth mentioning that, again with the best will in the world, they don't always have the highest calibre actors, so there's every chance you'll get someone who can kill a joke rather than spin it into gold.

Sometimes - often - performers make brilliant choices, other times - rarely? - they make poor ones. At least keep the writer in the loop I say.

Absolutely - please bear in mind that I'm not saying the writer should be banned from the room. I always attend recordings and rehearsals of my work but I tend not to speak unless we're talking absolute ruination or obvious misinterpretation. Writers are often too wedded to the version in their head to really properly consider the validity of other takes. So it requires real care.

All I'm saying is that the idea only the writer can possibly know the ideal and best possible version of a script is a nonsense.

Quote: Antrax @ May 7 2011, 12:17 PM BST

I find it an astonishing suggestion in all honesty. The idea that actors are so fundamentally inept at their job that they can't possibly tell how any single line should be delivered without the writer there to guide their way?

Where did I say that?

And in all honesty... I don't see how that anecdote backs up your point at all. One crap actor who completely misinterprets a role doesn't meant that all actors and directors will inevitably flounder without the writer's guiding influence.

She wasn't a crap actor, in fact she was excellent, she totally got the character spot on and then in my absence she or the director changed it totally until it didn't even fit the play which was dramatic.sad and funny.

I've had people completely misinterpret scenes and characters, sure, but that's the exception. By and large they make it work. Writers have to let go of the idea that the version in their head is necessarily the best one.

Surely the point of your anecdote isn't the one cast member who gets it wrong... but that all the others got it right?

Most actors would have got it right as it was basically a 'human document'...i.e... based on a true story with 'real' people.

View original

I am saying in that incident, only me as the writer knew she was getting it badly wrong, the director didn't seem to know either.
So getting back to the discussion [without astonishment] my point that only the writer knows how he/she wants the lines said is a valid point.

Quote: bushbaby @ May 7 2011, 12:40 PM BST

I am saying in that incident, only me as the writer knew she was getting it badly wrong, the director didn't seem to know either.
So getting back to the discussion (without astonishment) my point that only the writer knows how he/she wants the lines said is a valid point.

View original

Then that's an example of a bad director and actor, rather than actually backing up your point. If your point was 'sometimes bad actors and directors can ruin scripts' then you'd have no argument from me.

Still don't think your actual point's valid though unless you add the word 'sometimes' at the top. And follow it up with 'but usually not'. It's one tiny incident. As wiser people than me have said, the plural of anecdote is not evidence. One incident doesn't prove that it is always true. I'll mention what I did earlier - were all the other actors saying the lines how you wanted them said? If so, and you believe that only the writer can know how you want them said, how is this possible?

(To add though - as I say, I'll agree that only the writer can know 100% for certain how they imagined every single line should be said... but I simply do not see why that's important. As I've said elsewhere there's no reason to assume that's the best version of the line. There's no reason to assume they're right)

Still just aspirational for me but (unless the actors and directors were completely murdering the concept) why should the version that I have in my head as the writer automatically be the best/only way that line could be played? I've sat in enough rehearsals of pro and am stuff to hear the variety that can be achieved.
What I would be striving for is the best interpretation of the work and fresh eyes could bring something to the piece that hadn't been obvious to me because I was too close to it.
I'll turn it back on you BB. Re your comments on the script reading. You said it was incredibly useful to hear what the actors had to say about the characters. Why then will you not accept that occasionally its worth listening to what the people bringing the piece to performance think about it?

Quote: KLRiley @ May 7 2011, 1:26 PM BST

What I would be striving for is the best interpretation of the work and fresh eyes could bring something to the piece that hadn't been obvious to me because I was too close to it.

View original

100% this.

Quote: KLRiley @ May 7 2011, 1:26 PM BST

Still just aspirational for me but (unless the actors and directors were completely murdering the concept) why should the version that I have in my head as the writer automatically be the best/only way that line could be played? I've sat in enough rehearsals of pro and am stuff to hear the variety that can be achieved.
What I would be striving for is the best interpretation of the work and fresh eyes could bring something to the piece that hadn't been obvious to me because I was too close to it.
I'll turn it back on you BB. Re your comments on the script reading. You said it was incredibly useful to hear what the actors had to say about the characters. Why then will you not accept that occasionally its worth listening to what the people bringing the piece to performance think about it?

View original

It's maybe that I am not explaining what I mean, fully. It was incredibly useful [the script reading] but still one actor got it terribly wrong. I could have so easily corrected that if I had been present but it made no difference in this case as my script wasn't shortlisted anyway. [but had those particular lines been said how I intended they would have raised laughs and so I have to wonder how it came across just reading the script initially]
A most valid point they raised was that the humour was in the 70s and I so agree with that. There were many valid points and I know now where I have been going wrong, so to me the CD was well worth the cost....invaluable even.
The point I am trying to make, I think is that, yes, actors can say lines with a different interpretation than intended and can still be good and surprising to the writer but I think I mean when the actor ruins the lines and if the writer is absent, it is too late once the production is on, to correct it.

Quote: bushbaby @ May 7 2011, 1:37 PM BST

I think I mean when the actor ruins the lines and if the writer is absent, it is too late once the production is on, to correct it.

View original

Possibly - though the points to make are

1) Is it definitely ruined? Or does it just not meet the version you have in your head? Ruined or different?

2) It's too late for anyone to correct it, not just the writer. The director should correct it. Nothing about that suggests that the writer is the only possible person who could have corrected it.

Quote: Antrax @ May 7 2011, 2:40 PM BST

Possibly - though the points to make are

1) Is it definitely ruined? Or does it just not meet the version you have in your head? Ruined or different?

2) It's too late for anyone to correct it, not just the writer. The director should correct it. Nothing about that suggests that the writer is the only possible person who could have corrected it.

View original

I don't wish to labour the point as we all have different opinions/experiences. It has happened several times to me but to relate all the incidents would no doubt fill a whole thread.
Another 'problem' a writer has, is that they shouldn't really put directions to the actor as basically 'we' are all told not to do this as it belittles an actor that should be able to work out the mood and how to say the lines. Consequently, I put very little direction, if any, as to how the lines should be said.

Just one example.....'Hello' can be said in several different ways as can lines If the writer intends 'gentle' but the actor does 'angry' or vice-versa that's about what I mean......

Just another point and speaking as an actor. If the line consists of a list of things one after the other, I would say that line at breakneck speed [nothing worse than a list read out slowly] I thought all actors were taught that but maybe it's because I did the Stanislavsky method.
I acted in a two hander in London and was at loggerheads with the director for most of the rehearsals, it was alien to what I'd been taught. I felt uncomfortable on stage and to me, it was a nightmare. On the last night, I thought 'bugger this, I'm doing it my way'. She came galloping up to me after saying, 'my g*d, that was just brilliant. You finally got it, didn't you'..... !!!!! haha ....der!
That's an example of the actor getting it right and the director not, so I guess this debate could go on and on

Quote: bushbaby @ May 7 2011, 2:53 PM BST

I don't wish to labour the point as we all have different opinions/experiences. It has happened several times to me but to relate all the incidents would no doubt fill a whole thread.

View original

We're back to the plural of anecdote not being data. I've had lots of similar experiences too myself - but I don't think they back up what you're saying. Lots of actors have messed stuff up, but lots of other actors have done it fine, which does rather destroy the 'only the writer' thing. Bad actors existing doesn't mean that good actors can't get it right.

That's an example of the actor getting it right and the director not, so I guess this debate could go on and on

Hold on - the actor got it right? Without any notes from the writer? But how is this possible?

You're right - this could go on and on. Because you're quoting loads of anecdotes at me that mirror my own experiences but don't back up your point in the slightest. Sometimes bad directors and actors exist who will mess something up. But that doesn't prove a writer has to be in there all the time otherwise the show will fail. It proves that bad actors and directors suck.

It's useful for the writer to be there, I completely agree. But a play can be done perfectly well without them there as well.

Hold on - the actor got it right? Without any notes from the writer? But how is this possible?

The writer was Dutch and never present,I don't know to this day if we got it right but I know I did a better acting job on the last night and far better than she'd directed. Anyway, I'll back off, I'm sure you're right as usual but it would be nice for you to cut the sarcasm.
BTW a director from the Southwark theatre happened to be there on the last night and offered me the role of the old lady in Liaisons Dangereus {can't recall how to spell it haha, my age] and that was some accolade but after the whole experience, I gave acting up and settled for writing.

I guess you're not going to let a woman have the last word so I won't post after this one. Cheers

Quote: bushbaby @ May 7 2011, 3:38 PM BST

Hold on - the actor got it right? Without any notes from the writer? But how is this possible?

The writer was Dutch and never present,I don't know to this day if we got it right but I know I did a better acting job on the last night and far better than she'd directed. Anyway, I'll back off, I'm sure you're right as usual but it would be nice for you to cut the sarcasm

View original

It was a joke! You know, comedy forum and all that. I could equally say 'it would be nice for you to cut the insincere, passive aggressive "I'm sure you're right as usual" stuff'. But I won't.

In all honesty, I've no idea what point you're actually trying to make. I've agreed with your suggestion that it's useful for a writer to be present during rehearsals and that they can stop things going badly wrong (though there are other people who's job it is to stop things going wrong - and they usually succeed. It isn't really the writers place). I agree that the only person who knows for a fact how the writer intended a line to be said is the writer. And that some crap actors and directors can ruin some productions. All of this seems, to me, to be fairly obvious, common sense stuff.

My point is that with the play with the Dutch writer you were in... if it worked, if the audience went with it, of course you got it right! It doesn't have to be the version in the author's head to be right.

Crap actors or directors occassionally ruining scripts doesn't make this any less true. What it makes true is this sentiment: 'Don't work with crap actors or directors'.

Quote: Griff @ May 7 2011, 12:19 PM BST

We should also bear in mind that with the best will in the world, the scripts for something like the Mission are not Tom Stoppard. There will be ambiguities, there will be unclear characterisation, there will be things which are hard to interpret for the cast because these are early drafts of scripts by new writers.

View original

This seems like the director's viewpoint, not a writer's viewpoint to me, Griff.

The problem with you're suggesting a director or writer chose writers with inconsistencies, and therefore can do what they like with the script. No! Chose the best writer possible, not in the Tom Stoppard style necessarily...

If a character goes all over the place, it is a bad script. As for all people submitting being new writers I feel this is a misrepresentation. A writer who has only written for a few years may be better than one who has written several decades.

Quote: Antrax @ May 7 2011, 12:29 PM BST

It's equally worth mentioning that, again with the best will in the world, they don't always have the highest calibre actors, so there's every chance you'll get someone who can kill a joke rather than spin it into gold.
.

View original

We're very aware that in the past the standard of actors has been sometimes uneven.So we're changing the way we cast.

Instead of handing a script over to directors and letting them form their own ad hoc company, we're going to form a rep company of actors all of whom have a track record in comedy.

It levels the playing field. No writer in future should have to feel that his/her sitcom didn't go through because of a dodgy central performance.