Tuesday, June 03, 2008

Isherwood says things I agree with

on large cast size: A true artist, some might argue, can never let canny considerations of production influence his vision. Art must be its own imperative. A high-minded thought, but artists also hunger for their work to be known. A play that is never staged may be a work of genius, sure, but its genius is likely to leave no footprint on the world unless it is produced. and I’m not suggesting that size alone matters, obviously. But if the American theater is to remain an aesthetically robust enterprise, a vital step may be removing the invisible shackles from the imaginations of playwrights, making it natural — making it possible — for them to dream huge once again.

3 comments:

meeegan said...

I'd like to see Isherwood publish the actual per-actor costs based on the Equity and LORT contracts.

How many playwrights actually know those figures?

Adam said...

yeah I'm sure it's not a good idea to write large cast plays. I'm going to keep it under 5 from now on. Maybe keep it to 1, even or 2.

I'm just happy that he is advocating for something involving the expansion instead of the limiting of theater. see isaac's post:

http://parabasis.typepad.com/blog/2008/06/isherwood-vs-isherwood.html

Anonymous said...

Yes, but as Isherwood rightly points out: there's not much point in aiming high if you can't hit your target. And is it really necessary for playwrights to dream up new worlds?

Playwrights should stick to small scale casts (I find one person to be sufficient) and write small, naturalistic stories with linear, uncomplicated plots.