William's remark here is a good one, I think: > we might say the scale ranges from coercion to influence.B A coercive > effect would be when a person of power (control over production) urges the > artist > to change an artwork or create a specified image, etc.B An influential > effect > would be one that causes the artist to become aware of some likely > improvement to the artwork.B Generally, artists resist coercion and accept > influence > whether or not they work collaboratively. > William is right to see a "scale" here. The more I see what's said on the forum, the more I notice how much what we talk about is a matter of degree. For playwrights and screenwriters, the highest degree of coercion takes this form: "Change it like this or it doesn't get produced by us." (Or: "Miss XXX, the great box office star, says she can't take the role unless..."
I envy painters, poets, and novelists in this regard: Even if they don't sell "the work", when they finish it, it is still a complete work. There is a satisfaction in that. "I created this work! Here it is -- complete." The playwright, on the other hand, does not write plays. He writes scripts. The play is what the company puts on a stage, and it's always more than the writer has put on the page. But the playwright can't help thinking of the play as "his" work as well as the script. So if he doesn't get "bought", there's a real sense in which he can never quite get that particular satisfaction of the painter or the poet. Influence gets brought to bear on the playwright from all sides -- and sometimes it's oblique. I once had a production of a play in which one prominent role is that of a former philosophy professor. By far the best auditioner was a rough-looking actor who reminded me of Sean Penn. When we cast him, I rewrote the character's backstory to accommodate the part and the actor's persona. The change in fact added shadings, and made the character and the play more interesting. Even without changing his script, the playwright sees his work as a different play with every different director and cast. The point: not all influences are destructive, and even some coercions have made for a better "work". (E. g. David Merrick's twenty-minute cut in John Osborne's script for INADMISSABLE EVIDENCE durng rehearsal. The actor involved, Nicol Williamson, literally punched Merrick out when it happened. Later, Williamson admitted it made for a better play.) TED (gleaming tone) Big day. Lot of anxiety out there, but I know youbll do the right thing. Given your astounding history. (GRIFFbs congenial expression changes to wariness) A while ago, on the net I came across that heart-warming story in the Boston Globe when you won the Rhodes. Amazing! Sixteen years in foster homes, three years in the merchant marine, and then -- you win a scholarship to Harvard! And then the Rhodes! How did you do it? From blue collar to Oxford Blue! Did you ever find out who your real parents were? (Griff remains silent) ************** New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)
