I’ve taken to writing plays lately (not really the reason I haven’t posted in a while — my life has been somewhat tumultuous for months, but is returning to normal). One of them, a short play called Happily Ever After, is about to be produced. The director invited me to a rehearsal. Most of what they are doing is just fine; some of it misses the mark, but I also think playwrights have to accept that. However, the ending of the play is not dialogue, but rather stage directions, and the director and cast decided to change them. I noted the change, wondered about it, was disappointed in it, but it took a good 24 hours to fully understand why I was uncomfortable with it.
If you’ve read my posts on stage directions, you know that as a director and an actor, I largely believe in disregarding them. For the most part, I figure that if the stage directions are really good ones, I’ll find them myself in rehearsal. I believe in hanging on to stage directions that are needed to make the play comprehensible (e.g., he hides the gun under the seat cushion). I believe in hanging on to the stage directions of complicated business — the climactic fight scene in Wait Until Dark not only has plot points, it is well-crafted. The nature of Wait Until Dark is that you can’t really use a set that is much different than the original, so the fight scene can’t be much different than what Frederick Knott wrote.
I believe in hanging on to stage directions that help to indicate what I should be striving for in a scene. Eric Coble wrote a wonderful satire, Bright Ideas, that I badly wanted to stage once upon a time. (I still do, but directing doesn’t seem to be in the offing right now.) There are a number of scenes where the stage directions help to clarify the playwright’s intention. I wouldn’t blacken those out, but would keep them to remind me of what he was going for. I might end up using his ideas, or I might come up with something more clever, but in the same vein.
For instance, Coble has a scene that involves using puppets in the way that child psychologists use dolls to help children talk about the scary things in their lives. I may not use every puppet move he suggests if I can find a different movement that is funnier, but I’ll keep his stage directions in my script to give me a framework within which I can be creative.
The scenes that end each act also have a good bit of business that I remember thinking might need to be modified in some way, given the theater I was doing the play at. We were a very low-budget company that rented a stage for Tech Week and the duration of performances, and so needed a very easy set that could be loaded in in a matter of hours. I hadn’t come up with a solution by the time the production was cancelled, but I remember thinking that I needed to find a way to accomplish what Coble wrote without spending the money that it would require. The set changes would have meant some small tweaks to the stage directions.
(If you haven’t read Bright Ideas, you should. Coble is a very talented writer.)
So back to my play, Happily Ever After.
Some of my plays are pretty straightforward. Happily Ever After is a play that requires a bit of thought, and I sat in the rehearsal and tried to figure out what I would say to the cast if I were the director (it was an early rehearsal, so there were still wrinkles to be ironed out.) I realized pretty quickly that I needed to understand what it is about. Surprised by that? Playwrights don’t always know their play as well as you might think. They know it works, but a certain amount of it may happen so instinctively and fortuitously that they don’t fully comprehend its idiosyncracies unless they choose to dissect it as a director or scholar would. I put my director’s hat on with Happily Ever After and understood what I’d written as a result.
So I realized that there is yet another situation in which a director (and the cast) should at least be cautious about changing stage directions. But I’ve reached my word limit, so that’s for the next post!