The Play's The Thing

Last night my “Writing For Stage And Screen” class went on a field trip (I believe that’s what they call them nowadays) to a monthly gathering of writers, actors and directors. It promised much…
I was happy to cough up three quid to get in out of the driving Halloweeny rain and once inside met up with my fellow writers. We were given a wee sticker denoting our interest or ability so I had “WRITER” stuck haphazardly to my left boob (you try doing it while taking off a soggy Tom Baker scarf while wrestling with a see-through fish umbrella!). It seemed that of our group, I was the only one who was happy to openly display it (the sticker – not my sinister sided tit). We took our seats and we were greeted by a rather large man (I’m being kind – he wasn’t large in a Chris-Hemsworth-as –Thor kind of way but more of a you’re-no-stranger-to-a-Greggs way) who explained that tonight we would see 3 scenes being worked on by their writers, a director and 2 actors. He had picked 3 out of a possible 32 (and you’ll wonder as I did what the other 29 were like!). The writers came down and explained a bit about their scenes and then we squelched off to different locations to see what transpired. We were invited to wander between performance areas but I elected to sit in on one from start to finish (I also thought “the hell with going up and down stairs!”). The one I picked was set in the area where I live and featured 2 older (60/70 year old) women. I’m afraid that it owed more to couthy crowd-pleasers like “The Steamie” (the only play I have ever walked out of – it was so parochial it was either leave or gnaw off my own foot) than to the lives of younger pensioners of today. There was also some attempt at one of the characters coming across as mildly racist but with no challenge. I’ll give the 2 actresses plenty of credit – both much younger than the characters presented to them, they did well with what they had – one was not Scottish, perhaps Scandinavian or Icelandic by her accent and she managed really well with terms such as “weans” and “messages – and the other did portray a bitter old woman very well. But therein lies the problem – 60-70 isn’t old anymore yet this pair was written and spoke like they were ready for Soylent Green! The director was a bit of a lovey, darling (as was the main guy from the start) so you can imagine I warmed to him right away.
What I had expected was for there to be a bit more of a workshop element – where the “audience” would be invited to contribute and chip in ideas or suggestions based on their expertise (or in my case, lack of) but no, it was like watching events in a goldfish bowl and despite me sitting watching this throughout, as did a few other people, we weren’t acknowledged.
After an hour and a break we went back to the main space where all three scenes were acted out. The first one was the one I had watched and although they asked for questions at the end, I held back. The second one was about – you guessed it – Glasgow junkies who had somehow acquired a baby. When I asked why, when they were quite happy to cook their heroin and shoot it up with the baby next to them – and in a Glasgow park, aye right, like THAT would happen – but when they swore they said “chuffing” instead of “fucking” I was told that they didn’t want to swear in front of the baby and then made to feel like a fool for asking and that I was “stereotyping”. Oh, so it’s not stereotyping to have them shoot heroin (which was very graphically described) but it is to use foul language (pretty much every junkie I've come across and believe me it's not hard where I live and have lived - has sworn like a trooper!) and instead some epithet that isn’t even used in Glasgow like “bloody” or “blooming” – I think “chuffing” is from Yorkshire. Much praised was being heaped upon it although the main director (and director of this) stated that he doubted many if any of the audience had any experience of this situation or people – how fucking (I mean chuffing) patronising!
I was ready to walk out at this point but I’m glad I didn’t. The last scene was 2 men, possibly flatmates and one asked the other to pick out a Valentine card for the other’s new girlfriend. What ensued was high comic and physical farce from 2 very skilled actors where the one asked to buy the card questioned the motives of his friend and used the Japanese urban legend of Aka Manto where (from Wikipedia – my memory’s not THAT good) “If you're sitting on the toilet (usually the last stall), a mysterious voice will ask you if you want red paper or blue paper. If you answer red paper, you will be sliced apart till your clothes are stained red. If you choose blue paper, you will be strangled till your face turns blue. Any attempt to trick Aka Manto by asking for a different colour will result in you being dragged to the netherworld. The only correct answer to say is 'No paper'.” Genius. To bring that into what could have been a mundane scene was inspired. And I learned something too.
There as also much discussion that in a play particularly (but also in movies and books) the audience when they see A,B and C happening try to work out what is coming next. Maybe I’m not wired right but I don’t do that. I go into a play, book or film wanting to see what happens next. Am I wrong but if I start thinking about what’s going to happen next, it’s like I’ve fallen off of the rollercoaster and might as well leave, put the book down or switch off. To me a good story should keep you gripped. Does that make sense?
After the event was over, I spoke to a couple of classmates and bemoaned that not only was the “drifting in and out” really distracting – it really irked me in the room I was in and I could see it also disturbed the actors – and 2 out of 3 of the scenes were not what I’d call performance ready but that there was no input or participation and that we had to sit politely and agree! I told one other student that if I ever submitted a scene to this nonsense to shoot me.
I think it’s a real shame, because this could really have been a great thing – and it’s being going for a while – but I felt that to have missed the opportunity for discourse and discussion was a waste of time. I would rather have been in the class, working on more ideas.
I know I am being a girly swot – I’ve really thrown my heart and soul into this course. I have managed to get 3 books that are recommended reading and I now plan out a week of study where I read a few chapters of each, take notes and apply the exercises to my own script idea. I just feel, in the same way that I did when I took part in the comedy courses that you can really see the difference between someone who just starts writing or getting up and telling jokes because their mates find them funny and the ones who have learned a wee bit about microphone technique, the rule of three or in the case of writing building your characters from the ground up.
I have just read in the excellent “ STORY” by Robert McKee that if you write a scene then a change has to happen – something positive or negative has to change polarity so to speak. Your confident go-getter must suddenly be doubtful or your shy wee wallflower must become the life and soul. If nothing happens this is a non-event and just providing history or info. And as the book says, should you have that scene at all then? I just wish I had known that last night. I’m hoping that this is what our teacher wanted us to learn. I just fear that I’m the voice in the wilderness. And that if I want my scripts made, I’m going to have to become Tarantino. With tits xxx