[In the fall of 1986, as a member of the Literary Managers and Dramaturgs of America (now “. . . of the Americas”), I was part of a team of script readers for the Rockefeller Foundation Fellowships for American Playwrights Program, 1987 Competition. The project is now defunct, but it was a program for regional theaters to apply for grants to subsidize a residency for a mid-career playwright of their choosing.
[The Rockefeller Foundation had contacted LMDA, whose president at the time was Cynthia Jenner, who’d been a teacher of mine in the Department of Performance Studies at New York University. Cynthia put together a team of LMDA members to serve as the first level of screening for the grant competition.
[We read the scripts submitted by the theaters in support of their nominees for the residency and passed on our evaluations to the distinguished panel, the members of which weren’t known to us, who’d make the final selections of the grant awards.
[Each of us readers read scripts passed to us randomly, each of us reading a dozen or more. We might be reading a typescript or even a published text, and we might be the first reader or a second or third reader. We had to write up an evaluation using a form for the RF competition—I think Cynthia devised the form—so that we all responded to the same areas of interest.
[This first group of script evals below are all for playwrights whose names are known in theater circles. That was more likely in the RF competition than in other reading stints I did because the grant was for mid-career writers, so they already had track records. Later collections, if I continue to post these vintage reports, will include many writers whose work is not familiar to ROTters.
[One word of warning: these reports were never intended for public consumption; these were in-house documents. In order to be as brief and succinct as possible, some of what we said, as you’ll notice below, might sound harsh and even insulting. I’m afraid that’s how this end of the business works.
[I’ve posted other script reports on Rick On Theater in the past. “Two Script Reports” appeared on 20 February 2020, three evaluations were part of my post on Soviet playwright Evgenii Svarts (9 March 2020), and I included my script report for Don DeLillo’s The Day Room with my performance report in “Three Plays from Distinguished Companies from the Archives,” 16 April 2020.]
--------------------
[The first script in this selection is The Wash by Philip Kan Gotanda (b. 1951), a California-based writer. The Wash was first presented at Los Angeles's Mark Taper Forum in 1985 and made its New York City début in 1990 at the Manhattan Theater Club. In 1988, it was filmed by Michael Toshiyuki Uno for the Public Broadcasting Service’s American Playhouse.
[Gotanda’s work has mostly been premièred in California theaters, especially Los Angeles and San Francisco, before moving to stages across the U.S. and abroad (including Japan). He’s a third-generation Japanese-American and his writing focuses on the Asian-American experience. His plays, however, tackle themes that transcend the ethnicity of their characters and the locales of their settings.]
PRE-SCREENING SCRIPT EVALUATION
READER:
[Rick]DATE:
9/28/86
AUTHOR/(TRANS.): Philip Kan Gotanda
TITLE/DATE: The Wash, 1985
GENRE/STYLE: realistic family drama
STRUCTURE: episodic (27 scenes)
SETTING: “realistic but elemental,” representing 5 locations
LANGUAGE: realistic dialogue (with a little Japanese to spice it up)
MUSIC/LYRICS: none
NO. CHARACTERS/SPECIFIC NEEDS: 3 men, 5
women; 1 man is Hawaiian, the
CHARACTER STRUCTURE/TREATMENT: ensemble cast of realistic characters
CONCEPTION: character study of a failed marriage
CHIEF THEATRICAL INTEREST: “non-ethnic” treatment of Japanese-American characters: these are just people who happen to be ethnically Japanese. The play has warmth and compassion, though it’s unspectacular
BRIEF SYNOPSIS:
__________________________________________________________
Nobu and Masi have separated some time before, though Masi still picks up her ex-husband’s dirty laundry and delivers his clean clothes. Both are seeing new people, though Masi is getting more serious than Nobu. Encouraged by her daughters, Masi asks for a divorce so she can remarry. Nobu at first reacts violently, but finally acquiesces. There is a minor subplot dealing with Nobu’s estrangement from his youngest daughter, who married a black American, and her infant son.
DISCUSSION/EVALUATION:
This play is not spectacular or particularly innovative theatrically, but it is
touching and engaging. Part of the
script was missing, so I was unable to give it a full evaluation, as the ending
got confusing because of missing scenes, but Gotanda has created an interesting
situation with believable characters.
The work is solid and well structured, and shows the marks of a
disciplined and talented playwright.
Most important, in my estimation, is the material Gotanda is working with. He is writing about the Japanese-American community, but in a way that is accessible to both Japanese and westerners. It took the black theater in this country a decade or more to begin creating this kind of play about black Americans. This is a writer who ought to be encouraged and supported in his work to bridge the culture gap. In time, I feel he will certainly write theatrically more interesting plays.
RECOMMENDATION:
Reject ____________
Reject, but express
interest in writer ____________
Second reading ____XXX____
Other ____________
* *
* *
[Spalding Gray (1941-2004) was a popular actor and monologist in New York City. He started in New York City’s Downtown avant-garde theater and performance scene, becoming a member of the renowned Wooster Group theater company in Manhattan’s SoHo. Several of his performances were filmed for theaters and television.
[In the 1980s and 1990s, Gray performed autobiographical monologues, first at the Wooster Group’s Performing Garage, then other venues around the city, and finally débuting at the Lincoln Center Theatre.
[In 1986, the Acting Company, a touring company under the artistic direction of Michael Kahn, presented a program of seven one-act plays adapted from stories by Anton Chekov, each play written by a different dramatist. Gray was commissioned to adapt The Witch, an 1886 short story about lust and loneliness. The program, called Orchards, opened at the Lucille Lortel Theatre in Greenwich Village on 22 April 1986.
[But Gray had composed a monologue he called Rivkala’s Ring, which has little to do with The Witch. Instead, it largely resembles one of Gray’s monologues—though it was the first piece he wrote intended to be performed by someone other than himself.
[A serious car accident in 2001 left him severely injured and maimed. Despite his success and popularity, this and the treatments for his injuries led Gray into a deep depression and in January 2004, the playwright and actor went missing. In March, the body of Spalding Gray was found in the East River. He is believed to have jumped off the Staten Island Ferry and drowned.]
PRE-SCREENING SCRIPT EVALUATION READER:
[Rick]DATE:
9/29/86
AUTHOR/(TRANS.): Spalding Gray
TITLE/DATE: Rivkala’s Ring, 1986
GENRE/STYLE: “stream-of-consciousness” storytelling
STRUCTURE: monologue
SETTING: none necessary
LANGUAGE: contemporary speech as if improvised on the spot
MUSIC/LYRICS: none
NO. CHARACTERS/SPECIFIC NEEDS: 1 (written for a man, but possible to adjust for a woman; Gray even hints it could be)
CHARACTER STRUCTURE/TREATMENT: monologist (it’s Spalding, whatever actor plays him; he even suggests studying one of his tapes at Lincoln Center to prepare for the piece [the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts, located at Lincoln Center, has a division called Theatre on Film and Tape, which holds items such as the name implies])
CONCEPTION: like most of Gray’s work, he’s making wry, off-beat observations of the world he lives in, with all his usual semi-logical twists and turns
CHIEF THEATRICAL INTEREST: seeing someone else do Spalding; the wonderful, idiosyncratic humor of the vision
BRIEF SYNOPSIS:
___________________________________________________________
A synopsis isn’t possible, but it is Spalding’s thoughts and observations on the day of the arrival of the Chekhov short story he’s supposed to adapt. His musings cover a drowned rat in the swimming pool, AIDS, a New York suicide, eating-all-you-can at the Sizzler [a nationwide steak-and-seafood chain in the ’80s and ’90s whose reputation and food deteriorated in mid-’90s] and dinner at a Japanese restaurant. The rest must be read to be experienced; a summary won’t work.
DISCUSSION/EVALUATION: Evaluating Spalding
Gray is very difficult. If you’ve seen
him work, it’s not necessary; if you haven’t, describing him is
inadequate. He is truly unique—an
honest-to-God one-of-a-kind storyteller.
He’s usually compared to Garrison Keilor, but that’s not very
accurate. Since Gray’s material is drawn
from his own life, as seen through his own odd-ball eyes, no one else can be
the same. The most that can be said is
that Rivkala’s Ring, like all of Gray’s pieces, is telling, honest,
revealing and insightful. And funny—most
importantly, funny.
Gray has just had his first mainstream exposure by being booked into Lincoln Center [a series of his monologues at the Mitzi E. Newhouse Theater in June, July, and August 1986]. His introduction to the jacket-and-tie set is important to theater. Rivkala’s Ring is his first attempt to write a piece divorced from his own performances, and turn it over to another actor to play. He’s about to embark on his first play to be performed by a company, rather than a single individual [I don’t believe this ever came to pass]. As much out of curiosity about how his work will develop in this new vein as conviction that Gray will be an important figure on the horizon of the American stage, I want to encourage and support this work.
RECOMMENDATION:
Reject ____________
Reject, but express
interest in writer ____________
Second reading ____XXX____
Other ____________
* * * *
[Richard Greenberg (b. 1958), a native Long Islander and a magna cum laude Princeton grad, writes for the stage and for television and is known for his depictions of American life that uses humor to undermine the hypocrisies and prejudices of the middle-class.
[Greenberg studied creative writing at Princeton with novelist Joyce Carol Oates and then went on to Harvard for graduate study in English and American lit. He dropped out in 1985 when he was accepted into the Yale School of Drama's playwriting program.
[Life Under Water, a 45-minute one-act, premièred Off-Broadway at Manhattan’s Ensemble Studio Theatre on 8 May 1985 under the direction of Don Scardino with a cast of future stars. It was later filmed for and broadcast on the PBS television program American Playhouse on 12 April 1989 with a cast comprised of Sarah Jessica Parker, Haviland Morris, Keanu Reeves, Joanna Gleason, and Stephen McHattie.
[Take Me Out, Greenberg’s 2002 Broadway play about Major League Baseball, won the 2003 Tony Award for Best Play. He’s also won the New York Drama Critics Circle Award and the Drama Desk Award—both for Take Me Out—and Take Me Out was a finalist for the 2003 Pulitzer Prize for Drama and Three Days of Rain was a finalist in 1998.]
PRE-SCREENING SCRIPT EVALUATION
READER:
[Rick]
DATE:
9/29/86
AUTHOR/(TRANS.): Richard Greenberg
TITLE/DATE: Life Under Water, 1985
GENRE/STYLE: realistic comedy w/absurd elements
STRUCTURE: episodic 1-act (16 scenes)
SETTING: suggested/fragmentary for several Long Island locations
LANGUAGE: contemporary realistic conversation w/a heightened sense of the absurdity of today’s upper-class speech
MUSIC/LYRICS: not a musical play, but several recorded songs of various pop varieties are suggested as background and bridges
NO. CHARACTERS/SPECIFIC NEEDS: 3 women, 2 men
CHARACTER STRUCTURE/TREATMENT: slightly absurd versions of recognizable types
CONCEPTION: the absurdity of life among the idle rich, but with a poignant touch
CHIEF THEATRICAL INTEREST: insightful look at the world of the affluent; the delicate line between comedy and touching drama; unusual characters for actors
BRIEF SYNOPSIS:
___________________________________________________________
Kip cannot live with his smothering mother anymore. He runs away from their home on the South Fork of Long Island one night while his divorced mother is out with her married lover. Penniless and drunk, he finds Amy-Beth and Amy-Joy, who are house-and-baby-sitting. He moves in with them and becomes involved with both women. In the end, they all return unhappily to their respective homes.
DISCUSSION/EVALUATION: Life Under Water is billed and reviewed as a comedy of the modern upper class. That’s not entirely true—or fair. It is funny and the characters are slight exaggerations of people we all know or have heard about, but it has a very poignant side, too. Greenberg, who writes knowingly about both the WASP affluent and their Jewish counterparts, sees the sadness in these lost and valueless souls. What’s most impressive is that Greenberg doesn’t push too hard for either the laughs or the near-tears.
Though I do wish I had one of Greenberg’s recent full-lengths on which to base an evaluation, I sense that he is developing both a unique sensitivity and a strong voice. His wry view of the world he grew up in, and his way of relating it to the public seem well worth encouraging.
RECOMMENDATION:
Reject ____________
Reject, but express
interest in writer ____________
Second reading _____XXX___
Other ____________
* *
* *
[Richard Nelson (b. 1950) is a playwright and librettist, having written the books for the Tony Award-winning musicals James Joyce’s The Dead (with Irish composer Shaun Davey; Off-Broadway, 1999; Broadway, 2000) and the Broadway version of Chess (1988), as well as the critically acclaimed play cycle The Rhinebeck Panorama (decade-long, 12-play cycle; 2010-2021, including three play cycles: The Apple Family Plays, The Gabriels, and The Michaels).
[The four Apple Family plays, which feature a family gathering in Rhinebeck, N.Y., take place on days that happen to be of national significance. The Gabriel trilogy is about another Rhinebeck household that theatergoers visit at three points during the 2016 election year. The three pandemic Zoom plays revisit the Apples as they talk through collective trauma in real time. The two-part exploration of the Michaels depicts an artistic family on the verge, then the other side, of immense loss.
[(The “Rhinebeck Panorama” is a painting by an unknown artist that provides a bird’s-eye view of London at the beginning of the 19th century [ca. 1810]. It gets its name from the town of Rhinebeck, where it was found in 1940, lining a barrel of pistols.)
[Principia Scriptoriae (1986) premièred at the Manhattan Theatre Club in April 1986. The title is Latin for “the Principles of Scripture,” which, according to Catholic doctrine, are eight principles one must follow to interpret scripture and unveil the word of God written in the bible. It might be interpreted, with respect to Nelson’s play, to mean the principles of writers.
[The play went on to play at the Hartford Stage in Connecticut; A Contemporary Theatre in Seattle; and The Studio Theatre in Washington, D.C., among others. In the fall of 1986, Principia Scriptoriae was presented at The Pit, the Royal Shakespeare Company’s 200-seat studio theatre at the Barbican Arts Centre in London.]
PRE-SCREENING SCRIPT EVALUATION
READER:
[Rick]
DATE:
10
AUTHOR/(TRANS.): Richard Nelson
TITLE/DATE: Principia Scriptoriae, 1986
GENRE/STYLE: realistic drama
STRUCTURE: 10 episodic scenes
SETTING: various locations, principally a prison cell, in an unnamed Latin American country; suggested realism best
LANGUAGE: heightened realistic dialogue
MUSIC/LYRICS: none
NO. CHARACTERS/SPECIFIC NEEDS: 8 men (0 women); several speak Spanish
CHARACTER STRUCTURE/TREATMENT: raisonneurs, each expressing an aspect of various central questions
CONCEPTION: What is the position of writers in political situations? Is there a difference between a right-wing government that imprisons its writers and a left-wing government that imprisons its? Practicality vs. Ideals; Careerism vs. Honor
CHIEF THEATRICAL INTEREST: the debate of the issues; the topical subject
BRIEF SYNOPSIS:
__________________________________________________________
Two young writers, an American and a local man educated in England, are in prison in a fascist Latin American country for passing out leaflets. They are tortured and interrogated, but eventually released. 15 years later, the two meet again, after the leftists have gained power and the Latin writer has become a government official. The American has come as part of an international delegation of writers there to negotiate for the release of an older writer imprisoned for his activities on behalf of the former regime.
DISCUSSION/EVALUATION:
Shaw called Misalliance “A Debate in One Sitting,” and that’s pretty
much what Principia Scriptoriae is, except without the humor. The play received considerable acclaim when
it was produced Off-Broadway last season, and TCG’s American Theatre has
chosen to publish it (July 1986), all of which suggests it is a significant work. Then why was I so bored with it? I found it predictable and surprisingly
bloodless, for all its topical allusions and the suggested violence of the
subject.
The
characters were pretty much types, sort of Moon Children meets “El
Salvador” (or whatever that recent movie was titled [Salvador, released
in April 1986]). I knew what each one’s
position was going to be at every turn, and the personal motivations were so
shallow and obvious, I didn’t care.
Nelson is playing with a significant issue here, but for my dough, he
cops out by making every character sell out in the end. I am not impressed.
Nelson has had some successes for some time now, but I don’t really know his work except by title. His writing here is good in terms of craft and structure, but the play takes no risks in my view. Perhaps that’s where Nelson has to go—to a riskier level of writing. Before I recommend him for a large award (this would be his second Rockefeller), I’d like to see him take a few theatrical chances.
RECOMMENDATION:
Reject ____________
Reject, but express
interest in writer ____XXX____
Second reading ____________
Other ____________
* *
* *
[Frank Chin (b. 1940) is an author and playwright who’s considered to be one of the pioneers of Asian-American theatre. Born in Berkeley, California, he grew up in Oakland’s Chinatown. He started the Asian American Theater Workshop in San Francisco; in 1973, it became the Asian American Theater Company. (Many Asian-American artists were associated with AATC, including Philip Kan Gotanda.)
[The first play by an Asian-American writer to have a production by a major New York company was Chin’s The Chickencoop Chinaman (The American Place Theatre, 1972). It brought the author to the attention of the U.S. theater world. Criticism of America’s racism features in many of his plays and novels and he frequently examines stereotypes of Asian Americans and traditional Chinese folklore in his work.
[Chin has often found himself in conflict not just with white authors, but other Chinese Americans, whom he considers inauthentic and pandering to white readers. A 2005 biographical documentary is called What's Wrong with Frank Chin?
[American Peek A Boo Kabuki, World War Two And Me was first staged in Los Angeles in 1985.]
READER: [Rick]
DATE: 10/9/86
AUTHOR/(TRANS.): Frank Chin
TITLE/DATE: American Peek A Boo Kabuki, World War Two And Me, 1985
GENRE/STYLE: semi-realistic drama, with flashbacks & direct address
STRUCTURE: 3 episodic acts
SETTING: various locations in a Japanese relocation camp in Wyoming; fragmentary realism
LANGUAGE: dialogue and direct address
MUSIC/LYRICS: some characters sing American folk songs
NO. CHARACTERS/SPECIFIC NEEDS: ca. 19 men, 4 women, extras; most are Japanese; some doubling indicated
CHARACTER STRUCTURE/TREATMENT: various types of Japanese-Americans, struggling against each other and the white power structure
CONCEPTION: exposing the myth of Japanese complacency in the WWII internment; the conflict of assimilation and traditional Japanese culture
CHIEF THEATRICAL INTEREST: the subject; Asian-American casting
BRIEF SYNOPSIS:
__________________________________________________________
When the Japanese community in the west was suspected of divided loyalties during World War II and interned in relocation camps, the Japanese-American establishment campaigned for going along to prove they were not pro-Japan fifth-columnists. Many of the younger, American-born Nisei struggled against this sentiment, even violating federal laws and going to trial to “clarify their citizenship status.” Most went to jail for their actions, betrayed by the older Niseis and the Japanese-born immigrants who were more afraid of bad publicity than being victimized. All this is told from the viewpoint of a now-middle-aged comedian who was an 11-year-old “outsider” (he spent his first 10 years in a TB hospital, away from his family and culture) during the camp years.
DISCUSSION/EVALUATION: This play is very
long, and, for my dough, doesn’t move well enough to sustain its length. It needs severe cutting both for length and
for content—there’s just too much going on.
Not that the play is very active.
It’s quite static for the most part.
It’s interesting for its history, but it isn’t dramatic or
theatrical. I sincerely doubt it will
play as it now stands. (Chin’s opening
statement makes claims about this script’s theatricality/performance style that
is at least inaccurate, and at most, pompous and pretentious.)
This being only Chin’s fourth play so far, I see no reason to feel pressed to give him a grant yet. He’s had some success with two earlier plays, including having one (The Year of the Dragon) produced on PBS [Great Performances, Public Broadcasting Service, 1971; Theater in America, PBS, 1975]. On the evidence of this play, his first venture beyond his native Chinese-American culture for source material, he should be encouraged to explore his craft more before being awarded a residency grant.
RECOMMENDATION:
Reject ____________
Reject, but express
interest in writer ____XXX____
Second reading ____________
Other ____________
No comments:
Post a Comment