|
|
Posted by PTravel on 09/25/82 11:53
"Steve Guidry" <steveguidry1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6mTvg.7492$vO.4285@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Would that be "resolution" ?
>
> I used to teach Theatre arts as well . . .
>
> Steve
Yep! That's it!
>
>
>> Actually, there's a reason for that. The structure of contemporary
>> drama, whether live or filmed, was set in the 19th century by Eugene
>> Scribe, who was attempting to codify neo-classic concepts of drama. It's
>> been a while since I've thought about this (I used to teach theater
>> history in university in another life), so I may get the elements or
>> order wrong, but, essentially, Scribe wrote that the neo-classic ideal
>> was drama divided into five distinct parts: Status Quo, Complication,
>> [something else which I don't recall now], Denoument and New Status Quo.
>> (this is embarrassing -- I should know all of them). At any rate, this
>> resulted in a relatively fixed and predictable rhythm that has been
>> adhered to, either consciously or unconsciously, ever since. There are
>> other aspects of well-made plays, e.g. comedy is usually cyclical, i.e.
>> the characters wind up exactly where they started, all of which are, I'm
>> sure, very familiar to modern audiences, even if they've never heard the
>> term.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And not to forget the happy ending,
>>>>> with a bunch of people clapping that all ended well.
>>>>> The swearing and the love-scene have to be in there, studio's wish (or
>>>>> demand), and a blonde girl with the usual attributes. The swearing can
>>>>> easily be cut out, because 99.99% of the time it doesn't add anything
>>>>> to
>>>>> the story.
>>>>
>>>>Though there is a certain amount of formula involved, it is nowhere near
>>>>as
>>>>cynically lock-step as you claim. I worked in the industry (as an
>>>>actor)
>>>>for more than a decade before I quit and became a lawyer. I knew (and
>>>>still
>>>>know) many writers and producers. You're simply wrong.
>>>
>>> I'm not wrong :-) I have seen the side which you didn't see, so we
>>> differ
>>> in opinion.
>>
>> When I was in the business, I knew lots of writers and producers. I'm
>> not wrong.
>>
>>>
>>>>> Same with the love-scene.
>>>>> Therefor I don't find it censoring to cut these things out, because
>>>>> this
>>>>> kind of content is usually brought in in a later stage, to make it
>>>>> interesting for studios and investors, and not at the moment of
>>>>> creation
>>>>> of
>>>>> the story by the writer.
>>>>
>>>>Absolutely and completely wrong.
>>>
>>> No way. As an actor you have had luck then, that this never happened.
>>
>> As I said, I'm not speaking from the actor's perspective. What the
>> studios and directors will do, though, is shape the final edit to get a
>> specific rating, e.g. PG is death for a more adult project, so gratuitous
>> language may be included just to get it up to an R, or vice versa.
>>
>>>
>>>>> And I know this from speaking with a few people
>>>>> who have produced/written/directed feature-films.
>>>>
>>>>And I know you're wrong from speaking with many people who have
>>>>produced/written/directed feature films.
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter. Whatever I say, you always say I'm wrong.
>>
>> Food for thought, isn't it?
>>
>>> For you there is
>>> only one right, and that seems to be your's. It doesn't matter to you
>>> there
>>> is a whole world out there, where things are different. So be it :-)
>>
>> Whereas you would prefer that I ignore my own personal experience,
>> education, training and the input of friends and associates.
>>
>> "Obviously, our social spheres are widely different."
>>
>> Cecily Cardew, The Importance of Being Earnest
>>
>>>
>>> -m-
>>> --
>>> "I'm full of dust and guitars." - Syd Barrett
>>> 07/07/06 The Crazy Diamond is now a star in heaven
>>
>>
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|