Posted by Steve Guidry on 01/12/14 11:53

Would that be "resolution" ?

I used to teach Theatre arts as well . . .

Steve


> 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
>
>

[Back to original message]