WHY READING PLAYS IS GOOD FOR YOU....

 

If you haven't been following my blog (it's okay, there's a lot of stuff to do in this world of ours), I read 30 plays for the 30 days of September, one a play a day, reading the plays in one sitting to get a good feel of their dramatic arc and structure. I then wrote about each play, giving a basic run down of what it was about, as well as some history of its premiere production and its playwright, and other dramaturgical information, as well as some of my opinions about each play.  The 30 plays were as follows (you can click on each one to go to my post about it) :

1. Lemon Sky by Lanford Wilson
2. Ceremonies in Dark Old Men by Lonne Elder III
3. Painting Churches by Tina Howe
4. The Flies by Jean-Paul Sartre
5. All Over by Edward Albee
6. Other Places by Harold Pinter
7. Marat/Sade by Peter Weiss, Translated by Geoffrey Skelton, Verse Adaptation by Adrian Mitchell
8. for colored girls who have considered suicide/when the rainbow is enuf by Ntozake Shange
9. Brilliant Traces by Cindy Lou Johnson
10. Titanic by Christopher Durang
11. Sticks and Bones by David Rabe
12. Bosoms and Neglect by John Guare
13. Arcadia by Tom Stoppard 
14. R.U.R. by Karel Čapek
15. Trudy Blue  by Marsha Norman 
16. Morning, Noon, and Night by Israel Horovitz, Terrence McNally, and Leonard Melfi
17. Jack and Jill: A Romance by Jane Martin
18. The Good Doctor by Neil Simon
19. Fences by August Wilson
20. Tea and Sympathy by Robert Anderson
21. One Flea Spare by Naomi Wallace
22. The Taking of Miss Janie by Ed Bullins
23. The Master Builder by Henrik Ibsen
24. I Hate Hamlet by Paul Rudnick 
25. Hunger and Thirst by Eugene Ionesco
26. Summer and Smoke by Tennessee Williams
27. Mary, Mary by Jean Kerr
28. Indians by Arthur Kopit
29. Salomé by Oscar Wilde
30. Little Murders by Jules Feiffer
BONUS PLAYS THROUGHOUT THE MONTH:  This Property is Condemned by Tennessee Williams, Come Down Burning by Kia Corthron, and My Left Breast by Susan Miller

As the title of this post might and the above picture suggests, spending a month focusing on reading a play daily was very good for me, and I think it will be good for you, too. 

But why, Bobby, why?

Here are a few reasons:

- IT REFRESHES YOUR VISUALIZATION:  I found that working my visualization muscles was a real treat. Setting the scene in your mind, hearing the characters in your head, and actually watching the play unfold in your imagination is a valuable tool for any playwright, actor or director. 

- DETECTING STRUCTURE BECOMES ALMOST AUTOMATIC: Especially with well-crafted plays, the reader begins to fully and almost inherently feel the structure of a play, and sense its dramatic arc. Clearly, this is valuable for any one involved in theater. 

-ONE BEGINS TO GLEAN CHARACTER BUILDING TECHNIQUE AND DRAMATIC ACTION: All these things one learns in a script analysis class or an early acting college course can start to be gleaned simply by reading plays, paying attention to how dialogue creates ACTION for character, how the dramatic action builds based on OBJECTIVES and OBSTRUCTIONS. One can find this stuff easily on the page--- it is not hard to find, because as you read, you simply begin to understand it as you let the play build in your imagination. 

- IT IS FUN:  Yes, pure and simple, reading plays is fun. And by fun, I don't just mean with the comedies and laughing, etc. Fun is also being engaged. Fun is feeling something deeply, understanding something in a new way that you have never understood it before. 

-IT IS BOTH HISTORY LESSONS AND EMPATY LESSONS:  I noticed when reading many of these plays, particularly American plays of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, how even plays that weren't outwardly political had something to say. Mary, Mary example, in many ways, seems like just a fun comedy, and it is that, certainly. But when you think of the time period and a female protagonist taking agency for herself, making the choices based on what she wants, it is a statement. A play like Tea and Sympathy  comments on toxic masculinity before the term existed, and comments on homophobia when it wasn't popular to do so. And plays like Indians, Fences, Come Down Burning, and The Taking of Miss Janie  deal with America's racism in stark and honest and necessary ways. And by presenting all of this as plays, where the reader and the audience is in the character's shoes, hearing their voices, it becomes an easier delivery system for empathy in many ways than other forms of writing (in my opinion... but don't get me wrong... I love pretty much all forms of writing). 

Do I think if you are serious about theater that you should try a similar challenge of reading 30 plays in 30 days?  Yes I do! 

Do I think if you just like reading that you should try a similar challenge of reading 30 plays in 30 days? Yes I do!

Do I think we should normalize reading plays in the same way that we read novels and short stories and poems,etc.? You bet! 

I know I plan to keep reading more and more plays. As a playwright, it has recharged my batteries and inspired me. I hope to read at least one play a week from here on out (on top of all the books and such I want to read, too). 

Don't feel you have to have the same reading list that I did (although I must say it is a pretty good one... I did try to be diverse and wide-ranging). Read any type of play that interests you, and then, please feel free to comment here and tell me about it. 

Thanks for taking the time to read my final thoughts on my 30 day play reading challenge. Go out and have a great month of reading yourselves! 

Shameless plug:  If you want to read any of my plays as part of your challenge, you can learn about them by CLICKING HERE

30 PLAYS IN 30 DAYS: Bonus Play "My Left Breast" by Susan Miller

 

Here is another bonus play for my "30 Plays in 30 Days" September reading challenge. My Left Breast by Susan Miller is a one-woman show that I found in a collection I have of The Best American Short Plays 1993-1994. The play originally premiered at the Actors Theatre of Louisville in the 1994 Humana Festival where Miller performed the piece herself. 

A multi-layered monologue, My Left Breast tells the story of a "one-breasted, menopausal, Jewish bisexual lesbian Mom", from a diagnoses of breast cancer through a mastectomy, from raising her son, to a breakup of a long-term relationship, and a diagnoses of osteoporosis... and through it all, Miller tells the story in a very human way, with plenty of humor, insight and poignancy.  I found the descriptions in the aftermath of her breakup relatable, and one can feel the no-holds barred honesty as she approaches each subject with a kind of grace in her writing.

Susan Miller received an Obie and shared the 1994/1995 Blackburn Prize for the play. It is published by Playscripts, Inc., a very fine publishing house (they carry two of my plays), so if you are interested in reading the play or licensing it for performance, you can visit their website by CLICKING HERE.

If you know this play, have read it, seen it, or performed it, let me know your thoughts by commenting on this post. If you would like to learn more about my plays, you can do so by CLICKING HERE.

30 PLAYS IN 30 DAYS: Play #27 "Mary, Mary" by Jean Kerr

 

 I have decided for the month of September to read 30 plays in 30 days. It is my belief that, if possible, a play should be read in one sitting to get a better inherent sense of the dramatic arc. Each day, I will write a short post here about the play of the day.

Play #27

Mary, Mary by Jean Kerr

Mary, Mary opened on Broadway in March of 1961 at the original Helen Hayes Theater. It ran for 3 years and 9 months before it transferred to the Morasco. It ended up closing December 12, 1964 after 1,572 performances. 

Let me say it again--- 1,572 performances. 

That makes it the longest-running non-musical play of the 1960s.  The play ran much longer than the film adaptation of it. 

Now, if you were to have asked me what the longest-running Broadway non-musical play of the 1960s had been I probably would have guessed one of Neil Simon's comedies, either The Odd Couple or Barefoot in the Park. 

How happy I am to have been wrong!  I confess, I find it incredibly refreshing that a female playwright writing a character about a woman who has grown in to finding her agency was such an incredible success. And here's the thing--- it is a pure joy to read, and I imagine is even more fun to see onstage. 

Mary, Mary begins with Bob, divorced for about nine months, in the midst of planning to get remarried to Tiffany. He is having money and tax problems, so his friend Oscar, an accountant, comes to his apartment to help him out. Unbeknownst to Bob, Oscar has asked Bob's ex-wife, the titular Mary, to come and help, as she might be able to help, as she and Bob had shared expenses before their divorce. Bob is nervous to see Mary, to the extent that he doesn't want to be left alone with her, and certainly doesn't want Tiffany, his new bride-to-be to meet her. When Mary arrives, she is stronger, more fashionable and perhaps a bit more confident than her ex-husband remembers. 

And she is very funny. 

Yes, I think Mary is a very cool character who, after the divorce (which was her husband's idea), has worked to become the version of herself that she wants to be. Yes, she still has feelings for ex-husband, and yes, sometimes her confidence wavers, but this is a character who, as John Gassner put it, is just as intelligent and funny as... well, Jean Kerr herself.  I like how the play even ends on Mary's own terms. Further, the role of Tiffany, the younger new wife, is also treated like a genuine character, in a role that many playwrights might have written as an airhead young trophy wife, Tiffany also shows her own agency and deeper layers.  

There is a subplot about a movie star who wants to publish a book with Bob's publishing company who meets Mary and develops feelings for her, seeing her in a way that Bob never did... until, perhaps, it was too late.

Or was it?

This is by no means a perfect play, but I understand why it was so successful. These characters are pleasant to be around. Jean Kerr, also known for her best-selling collection of essays, Please Don't Eat the Daisies, has one-liners that even Neil Simon would admire. And sorry to keep making the Neil Simon comparison, but I just find it strange that I had never really heard of Jean Kerr's plays until recently. I wonder why she or this comedy isn't as widely produced as some of Simon's classics. Yes, the play is a little dated perhaps, but so are Neil's. 

In any case, the play didn't exactly end as I had wanted it to, but it ended in an honest way that, again, didn't short change Mary's growth as a character, and even allowed Bob a little growth, too. Underneath the jokes, there are some genuine ideas about relationships and men and women that might not be groundbreaking, but are interesting. 

Jean Kerr was married to the Broadway writer and critic Walter Kerr, and they collaborated on such projects as Goldilocks the Musical and the Tony award-winning King of Hearts. 

Jean Kerr passed away in 2003 at the age of 80. Her last play, Lunch Hour was staged in 1980.  

If you're interested in staging Mary, Mary you can learn more about doing so on the Dramatist Play Service Website for it. 

Looking for a great new play for the Christmas season?  Check out my play A Wicked Christmas Carol, which blends the worlds of Dickens and L. Frank Baum's Oz books, providing terrific roles for women with a spin on a classic. CLICK HERE for details. 

30 PLAYS IN 30 DAYS: Play #25 "Hunger and Thirst" by Eugene Ionesco

 I have decided for the month of September to read 30 plays in 30 days. It is my belief that, if possible, a play should be read in one sitting to get a better inherent sense of the dramatic arc. Each day, I will write a short post here about the play of the day.

Play #25

Hunger and Thirst by Eugene Ionesco

I have mentioned my abiding love of the Theatre of the Absurd before on many occasions, and when it comes to writers I am fascinated by, Eugene Ionesco is near the top of the list. While I certainly am a fan of works like Rhinoceros, Exit the King, The Killer, The Bald Soprano (an anti-play) and others, it was some of his shorter plays like The Chairs and Jack or the Submission that really turned me on and blew my mind by their creativity. Ionesco's influence is huge, no doubt. Just read Albee's The American Dream and The Sandbox--- they are practically overflowing with Ionesco's influence.

Hunger and Thirst is labelled as 3 episodes. The first, called "The Flight", finds Jean dissatisfied at his new home with his wife Marie-Madeleine and their small baby in a cradle. As much as his wife adores him and comforts him, he feels a lack. There is a strange (it is Ionesco after all) visit from an Aunt who may or may not be dead (you can see in scenes like this how Ionesco also influenced comic writers like Christopher Durang), and after, Jean plays a prolonged gamed of hide and seek with his wife before disappearing altogether. And while she honestly believes that he cannot tear out his love from his heart, he does so, symbolically, in order to set out for something different. 

Episode 2, "The Rendezvous" finds Jean at a gorgeous mountain top museum, waiting to meet a woman, who may in fact just be some idealized version of something that does not exist. He waits and waits, while the two museum keepers look on him. In this episode, one might be able to see how Beckett influenced Ionesco... Ionesco, in the one interview I could find with him that was subtitled, talked about his love for Beckett's work. 

Episode 3, "The Black Masses of the Good Inn" finds Jean taking rest at an Inn (or is it a monastery?). The "brothers" who work their keep filling his plates and his drink-- and he keeps eating and drinking, never sated, a physical literal representation of his dissatisfaction in the first episode. The brothers then put on a show for him, which, in truth, goes on a bit too long and becomes a little tedious, though the message is strong--- it demonstrates belief as a kind of conformity, or, perhaps, conformity as a means to being fed. After the play, Jean finds himself in Inn (or monastery's) debt, though he sees visions of his wife and daughter, the baby girl now 15, waiting for him. Though he wants nothing more than to at last go home, it is time for him to feed others. 

There is much to be admired in this play (though I do think a good 5 pages could be cut from the final episode), and I underlined a great deal of it. The ending is powerful, and, as usual, Ionesco reveals some frightening truths in a manner both dark and comedic all at the same time. 

I thought it was brilliant.  

30 PLAYS IN 30 DAYS: Play #24 "I Hate Hamlet" by Paul Rudnick

 

I have decided for the month of September to read 30 plays in 30 days. It is my belief that, if possible, a play should be read in one sitting to get a better inherent sense of the dramatic arc. Each day, I will write a short post here about the play of the day.

Play #24

I Hate Hamlet by Paul Rudnick

When I was accepted into the acting program of Boston University's School for the Arts, I was given a t-shirt that had an image of John Barrymore as Hamlet with a speech bubble proclaiming, "To B.U. or not to B.U."  I mention this not only because even after all of these years I am proud to have been accepted into such a competitive program (ah, the days when I really believed I had the talent to actually make something of myself--- but I digress), but to give you an idea how John Barrymore, of one of the big theatrical families (and yes, he is the same Barrymore as Drew) is considered one of the most famous American Hamlets. In fact, after his 101 performances as Hamlet on Broadway, he was called "the greatest living American tragedian." 

Thus, of course he appears as a ghost in Paul Rudnick's I Hate Hamlet. In a note before the text, Rudnick tells how the play was inspired because he answered an ad in the New York Times real estate section for a "medieval duplex", to find that the apartment had been occupied by Barrymore in 1917.  I Hate Hamlet is about a handsome, though somewhat bland television actor of questionable talent, Andrew Rally, who decided to audition for Hamlet in the park after his television series was cancelled. He has rented a new apartment in New York, and, lo and behold, it once belonged to Barrymore. After a wacky seance (that, truthfully, doesn't feel earned) run by his wacky real estate agent, Barrymore is summoned---- though what really brought him back was to help the young actor prepare for the greatest role in the English-speaking theater. And whether teaching him the best way to stuff his tights, or performing Hamlet's speech to the Players, he succeeds in teaching this nervous young actor the transformative power of the Bard. 

It's a witty play, with some genuine laughs and a truly New York state of mind--- it's no mistake that Andrew's old TV director shows up with his coarse Los Angeles views to try to save Andrew from this "theater thing." And while occasionally some of the characters seem a bit one-dimensional and over-the-top, tis can be forgiven as it is a play about the theater and being larger than life. And in truth, I am wired to appreciate a play that honestly believes there is a transformative power in the art of Shakespeare for any actor, or, indeed, any person. 

Paul Rudnick's first play was Poor Little Lambs about a female Yale student who wants to join the all-male Whiffenpoofs. I knew his play Jeffrey and the film adaptation, a piece that won him an Obie and a John Gassner Award, as well as comparisons to Oscar Wilde. He has also written some very witty movies like Addams Family Values, Sister Act and In & Out (which is really fun). 

I Hate Hamlet did well, but actually achieved some controversy when the famed actor Nicol Williamson (a famous Hamlet in his own right, and was said to be "touched by genius" by Samuel Beckett) in the role of Barrymore, began attacking his co-star Evan Handler too realistically and dangerously in an onstage sword fight. Handler left the production because of it. 

Full disclosure:  I hate seen a production of this play when I was in high school, but didn't remember anything about it. It must not have been memorable. But it made reading the script today fun.

30 PLAYS IN 30 DAYS: Play #18 "The Good Doctor" by Neil Simon

 

I have decided for the month of September to read 30 plays in 30 days. It is my belief that, if possible, a play should be read in one sitting to get a better inherent sense of the dramatic arc. Each day, I will write a short post here about the play of the day.

Play #18

The Good Doctor by Neil Simon

Neil Simon hardly needs an introduction, as he is perhaps the most prolific Broadway play hitmaker of the last eighty years or so, starting with Come Blow Your Horn in 1961. Mr. Simon died in 2018 at the age of 91, over thirty plays, 20 screenplays, and dozens of television sketches and teleplays to his credit. I can also not stress enough how every student of playwriting, or any kind of writing in general, should read his memoir Rewrites, which follows his early years of learning how to write for the stage and all the work that goes into crafting a play. His second memoir, The Play Goes On, is also a valuable look at his life, though not as heavily focused on the craft of writing. Simon won a Pulitzer for his play Lost In Yonkers, and as well as a handful of Tonys, a Golden Globe, and many other awards along the way. 

Despite some of the critical honors and his unprecedented (and never duplicated) success as an American playwright, Simon was never taken as seriously as many of his contemporaries, as though his prolific nature and the fact he was writing comedies somehow meant he was pandering to audiences, or not a craftsman worth the admiration of say, a Pinter (Pinter actually loved The Odd Couple) or a Tennessee Williams. Underestimating Simon's importance and artistry is a mistake, I think. While he had some stinkers (what writer hasn't?), the truth is, he was solid at structure, creating human characters people related to, and, as his career progressed, someone who wasn't afraid of having real pain in his comedies. Famed actress and acting teacher Uta Hagen compared his comedies to the works of Anton Chekhov.

And that's the perfect segue to talk about The Good Doctor, Neil Simon's play that is a love letter to the master, Chekhov himself. The play features "The Writer" (played by the late, great Christopher Plummer) in the original Broadway production), a stand-in for Chekhov, who talks about his love for/compulsion for writing, as he introduces sketches based on Chekhov short stories, with scenes called "The Sneeze," "The Governess", "Surgery," "Too Late For Happiness," "The Seduction," "The Drowned Man," "The Audition," "A Defenseless Creature", and "The Arrangement."  It is a bright, breezy, fun read, with Simon clearly showing much love and care to the source material and its writer, a kind of "pupil appreciation for the master" sort of piece. I can imagine audiences having a great time, so long as they don't mind watching a collection of scenes as opposed to one longer piece. I daresay this would be fun to act in as well. 

While I enjoyed reading it, it is lighter fare, even for Simon. Each scene builds to a kind of punchline and little more, and while Simon is skillful in tying them together with the character of "The Writer," the play does feel a little disjointed.  

But it is good old fashioned entertainment, nonetheless.

The Good Doctor ran for 203 performances in 1973 at the Eugene O'Neill Theater, and was nominated for Four Tonys, with Frances Sternhagen winning one for Best Featured Actress in a play. 

A LOOK AT "SCAPINO" BY JEFFREY BINDER: A Brief Overview of Scapin the Schemer and the History of this Zany Commedia Character

 

BACKSTORY WITH BOBBY KENISTON

 There's just something about a character who can talk themselves out of anything, isn't there? A character who can somehow keep track of the lies they keep piling on and on, nimbly deceiving those around them without breaking a sweat. This is a staple of great comedies and farces all throughout history, even as early as Ancient Greece and Rome, and tonight, playwright Jeffrey Binder's Scapino takes a classic tale by Moliere and effortlessly sets it in a mafia style comedy for today's audiences. 

Moliere's Scapin the Schemer was first presented on the 24^th of May, 1671. And while this is the original source material for tonight's adaptation, Moliere's character Scapino or Scapin is named after a zanni character for the commedia dell'arte. A zanni character is what the commedia dell'arte referred to as a type of character that was an astute servant and, even more importantly, a trickster. Such characters were immensely popular in the commedia with all types of crowds, and our English word “zany” is derived from such characters. Scapin himself is said to have been created by Niccolo Barbieri, an Italian writer and director of the commedia dell'arte, and an occasional actor as well, as it is said that he performed before the Royal Court of France.

The name Scapino is directly related to the Italian word “scappare” which means “to escape”, and literally translates to “little escape artist.” A fitting name for a trickster who talks fast, and flees from fights even faster (even the ones he starts himself). Moliere's Scapin talks of having had a falling out with Justice, a “trifling quarrel” in which he claims, “She used me very badly; and I felt so enraged against the ingratitude of our age that I determined never to do anything for anybody.” Their means of escape includes escaping accountability for most of their actions, using their wit and words to stay one step ahead of all of those around them.

To be honest, I am surprised that it took so long for someone to come up with the brilliant idea of placing a Scapin zanni type character in a mafia comedy. I tip my hat to playwright Jeffrey Binder, who spent most of his career as a New York City actor, performing on and off Broadway, as well as appearing in several television shows. He has been trained in the technique of commedia and clowning, so you can rest assured that this adaptation, while new and bold, is also true in spirit to the masters that came before him. His journey in becoming a playwright began after he adopted his daughter and left New York City to become the Associate Artistic Director of the Gulfshore Playhouse in Naples, Florida, where the Artistic Director encouraged the development of his Scapino every step, leading to a critical (“A bold stroke of creative genius!”, the Naples Daily News proclaimed) and commercial success that is now being produced all over the country.

So please sit back and enjoy the zany (and zanni) mayhem of Scapino, our penultimate production of the season. But please save some of your laughter for Who's in Bed with the Butler?, our final show of the season coming soon.

Note:  This backstory originally appeared in Lakewood Theater's program for their production of Scapino.

To learn more about Jeffrey Binder's adaptation or to acquire rights to produce it, visit Concord Theatricals by CLICKING HERE.

The Backstory of "But Why Bump Off Barnaby": Will the Real Jack Sharkey Please Stand Up?

 

Note:  This piece originally appeared in Lakewood Theater's program for their production of Buty Why Bump Off Barnaby by Rick Abbot

BACKSTORY WITH BOBBY KENISTON

Greetings, friends! I would like to welcome you back to Lakewood Theater for the summer! I know I am not the first to do so--- I have no doubt that the wonderful box office staff, the indispensable volunteer ushers, and the tireless gang at the Lakewood Inn Restaurant have all beat me to it. Still, I would like to add my gratitude to the list and thank you for supporting theater here in central Maine as the world creeps back to sense of normalcy.

Nature often works in cycles, so it feels appropriate to open our 2021 season with last season's closing show, But Why Bump Off Barnaby?, a delightful mystery farce by Rick Abbot. If you have read myessays before, you know I often try to contact the authors of our plays for interviews. Sadly, this is not possible with Rick Abbot. He passed away in 1992. Further, he wasn't really Rick Abbot.

Don't worry, there's no mystery here. Rick Abbot was one of four pen names for prolific writer Jack Sharkey (the others were Monk Ferris, Mark Chandler, and Mike Johnson, who only wrote stage thrillers). Like many other prolific playwrights, Mr. Sharkey employed these pen names to avoid saturating the market, and because he wisely realized that many theaters don't like to produce multipletitles by the same author in a single season.

Born in Chicago in 1931, Jack Sharkey served in the army where he wrote and directed shows for theEnlisted Men's Club. In 1958, he moved to New York City to pursue writing, and, oh boy, did he pursue it! He wrote countless science fiction stories, novels, and chapbooks for children before deciding to solely write for the stage in 1975. And though it is estimated that he wrote 85 plays or more, it is very likely his name isn't nearly as recognizable to you as a playwright like Neil Simon or Beth Henley. This is because Sharkey was one of the playwrights who made a fine living, but never a “killing”. A “working class” playwright, Sharkey geared his plays toward the community theater and school markets, like so many others in his field (Tim Kelly, Pat Cook, and yours truly come to mind), making sure to write great parts for large casts to shine.

“His first play, Here Lies Jeremy Troy, was about two days from opening on Broadway on two occasions,but just didn't happen,” his widow Pat Sharkey told the L.A. Times in 1996. “He got comfortable with not trying for that anymore. He wrote what he would enjoy seeing, feeling that if he would enjoy it, other people would.”

Mr. Sharkey particularly enjoyed creating fast-paced, joke-filled shows that were easy to produce and made people laugh without offending them. It seems he couldn't resist going for the funny bone.

“I remember a few times, Jack would try writing a straight mystery,” Pat Sharkey said, “and after a few pages he'd decide to turn it into a comedy mystery, after all.”

And here, nearly 30 years after his death, Lakewood Theater carries on his legacy of laughter by bringing back the crowd pleasing But Why Bump Off Barnaby?, a quintessential comedy mystery. It is our hope it keeps you guessing--- and chuckling--- until the very end.

Thank you so much for joining us on our journey for 2021! Full steam ahead!

If you are interested in learning more about the play, or producing it, follow this link to Concord Theatricals:

'But Why Bump Off Barnaby?' | Concord Theatricals

BULLSHOT CRUMMOND: a history of the play, and a brief history of parody

Note: This essay first appeared in the program for Lakewood Theater's Production of Bullshot Crummond

BACKSTORY WITH BOBBY KENISTON 

In 1974, Ronald House and Diz White were in a fringe comedy troupe called The Low Moans

when they first developed the initial concept for Bullshot Crummond, tonight's entertainment.

The idea was fleshed out with fellow troupe members Alan Shearman, John Neville-Andrews,

and Derek Cunningham, and had its first production in San Francisco at the Palladium Theater

the very year it was written.

The play, as you will soon witness for yourselves, falls into a very particular style of comedy we

like to call parody. Specifically, Bullshot Crummond, the name and the play, is a send-up of the

character Bulldog Drummond, who was created by author H.C. McNeile in a 1920 novel named

after the hero. Bulldog was a World War I veteran who had trouble going back to the boredom of

a humdrum civilian life. He decided to place advertisements, looking for excitement, until, lo and

behold, he transformed from listless veteran into a world class adventurer! And there were

plenty of adventures to be had--- McNeile wrote ten more novels, four short stories and four

stage plays about them!

Certainly there are elements (including his name) that made Bulldog Drummond a perfect target

for the parody provided by The Low Moans' performers. While researching this play and the

source material it spoofs, I began to wonder just how long parody has been around, and where

it all came from. It should have come as no surprise to learn that it has been around since

Ancient Greece at the very least. In his Poetics, Aristotle mentions Hegemon of Thasos as the

inventor of parody. Hegemon would slightly alter the wording of well-known poems, and thus

“transformed the sublime into the ridiculous.” There were other narrative poems in Ancient

Greek literature known as a “parodia”, which took the ideas of epics, but treated them in a light,

satirical manner with mock-heroic subjects, like The Diliad (sadly, a lost parody of the Iliad,

mentioned by Aristotle) by Nicochares. Aristotle, always a bit self-serious, wasn't much of a fan,

saying that Homer made men better than they were, while these writers of parody made men

worse.

Perhaps Aristotle was missing the point, or simply didn't know how to take a joke. Parody

continued to thrive. It was first mentioned in English in 1598's “Every Man in His Humor” by Ben

Jonson, and Shakespeare, of course, used parody quite freely, notably in A Midsummer Night's

Dream with a group of rustics making a clown show from Pyramus and Thisbe, complete with a

talking Wall (something our former President would no doubt love) and Lion.

Nowadays, it is not uncommon for the parody itself to outlive its source material, which may be

the case for Bullshot Crummond, a play still widely produced and a well-known crowd pleaser

(trust me, you'll see in just a few minutes). It is reported that when Mel Brooks, a master in the

art of parody, saw the play, he was so impressed by its zaniness and humor that he said it

couldn't ever possibly be filmed. And while Mr. Brooks has been right about so many things in

his 95 years, he was wrong about this. Perhaps inspired by the success of other parody films

like Airplane!, a movie adaptation simply called Bullshot was released in the UK in 1983, with

three of the Low Moans reprising their stage roles, and several cameos from famous British

comedians. The film was produced by George Harrison's production company, Handmade

Films, as the former Beatle was known to love a good laugh.

And a good laugh is what we have in store for you, dear audience, as our very own lively troupe

of performers wait in the wings for the curtain to rise on Lakewood Theater's production of

Bullshot Crummond,

 If you are interested in learning more about the play or producing it, you can check it out at Concord Theatricals by following this link: https://www.concordtheatricals.com/p/5604/bullshot-crummond

INTERVIEW WITH PLAYWRIGHTS DOUGLAS E. HUGHES AND MARCIA KASH!

 

Marcia Kash and Douglas E. Hughes, a great comedic playwrighting duo!

Note: This interview first appeared in Lakewood Theater's program for their production of Mr. Hughes and Ms. Kash's play, Something Fishy.

BACKSTORY WITH BOBBY KENISTON

Something Fishy, by Douglas E. Hughes and Marcia (pronounced Mar-see-a) Kash, premiered at the Lighthouse Festival in Ontario, Canada, in 2016. Regular audience members of Lakewood Theater are no strangers to the works of Mr. Hughes and Ms. Kash--- we have produced two of their most famous titles, Who's Under Where?, a farce about love, marriage and lingerie, and Too Many Cooks, a delicious tale about cooking, gangsters and mistaken identity, to huge laughs and thunderous applause.

The writing team graciously took the time to answer a few of my questions. Their answers--- which came separately--- demonstrate just how wonderful a collaboration they have shared over the years.

BOBBY KENISTON: There is no doubt that during every election season, one can't help but find Something Fishy in the air, no matter what side of the political spectrum one finds themselves. What do you think makes politics and politicians a topic that is so ripe for farce and lampooning? Is comedy the great unifier?

DOUGLAS HUGHES: Good question! One of the central themes of Something Fishy is that politics, to a very large extent, is theatre; and as recent events have clearly indicated, that theatre can often tip over into farce. Hence the setting for the piece.

MARCIA KASH: I think comedy most definitely is the great unifier- as long as everyone can laugh at themselves as much as the other guy. Politics and politicians are perfect for farce as they, like characters in farce, are constantly caught in the spotlight, changing the story (the spin) and trying to say/do the "thing" that will win the day- whether or not it is true.

BOBBY: You began your collaboration in the early 1990s with Who's Under Where? and have since written a total of six plays together, with your latest, Deadline, having a professional reading at the Purple Rose Theater. At the risk of asking a question you might be sick of, how did you become writing partners, and what makes the collaboration work after all this time?

MARCIA: We became writing partners accidentally. I moved back to Toronto after some years away, with a half-written first draft of Who's, and reconnected with Doug, who was a friend, at the time he was embarking on a writing career. I asked him if he wanted to help me finish it and - bingo. We scored! The collaboration works because we share a similar work ethic, enjoy creating complicated plots and twists- and when we're not annoying each other, we make each other laugh.

DOUGLAS: Another excellent question, one that allows me to share one of my favourite stories about our collaboration. We were sitting side by side at my computer one day, bickering at each other about something we were working on at the time, when Marce suddenly looked up and said, "You know, this relationship is exactly like a marriage," to which I responded, "Yeah--without any sex." Marce shot back, "Like I said--it's exactly like a marriage." As flip as that remark may have been at the time, there's a lot of truth in it. Like any intimate relationship, a collaboration such as ours requires a lot of work in order for it to be successful; and fortunately, we've both been willing to put in the necessary work over the years. A fair degree of autonomy in a relationship is also a healthy thing, and we've always had that. Both of us have worked on many solo projects as writers, as well as working with other people. I guess you could call our "marriage" an open one.

BOBBY: Comedy seems to lend itself to the art of collaboration--- Moss and Hart come to mind, of course, or other Lakewood favorites Billy Van Zand and Jane Milmore. Does having a partner to bounce ideas off of lend itself to comedy more so than other genres? Like musicians riffing, seeing what works?

DOUGLAS: Absolutely! One of the most common questions we get from other writers is, "How on Earth do you manage to write with a partner?", to which I usually ask, "How do you not?" There are lots of comic playwrights, of course, who are perfectly happy to work on their own, and thrive doing so--Norm Foster being an obvious example (although Norm's been known to collaborate as well from time to time); but you're absolutely right. When you're writing comedy, it's a great help to have someone else there to bounce ideas off of. I think Marce and I have different strengths as writers--strengths that complement one another--and as such, our working together means that the finished product can often exceed the sum of its parts.

MARCIA: Totally. In our case we began our careers as actors and were very comfortable collaborating. Unlike our pal Norm Foster, we need to bounce our humour off one another. Norm has a facility for one-liners that we have to work very hard at!

BOBBY: Your plays have had over 200 productions all over the world and been translated into six languages. You even visited Shanghai to see a production of your farce A Party to Murder. [Interviewer's note: I am about to be very embarrassed to have called this play a farce] I imagine it must be quite a thrill to see your work find such wide and diverse audiences! How was the trip to Shanghai, and how does comedy, or farce in particular, cross the language barrier?

MARCIA: I believe we are translated into 8 languages now... A Party to Murder isn't a farce, it is a murder mystery. The Shanghai trip, however, WAS a farce. I broke my knee on the first day and so our adventures there had a very unusual element added in. The experience of seeing the show from a wheelchair, in Mandarin, was one I will never forget! The audiences there are very young, very tech savvy and very interested in Western culture. The production and reactions were so different from what we are used to seeing.

DOUGLAS: One of my greatest joys has been having had the opportunity to see a number of productions of our plays in different languages and different cultures--I've seen our work done in French in Québec, in Polish in Warsaw, and now, in Shanghai and Shenzhen in Mandarin. I should point out, though, that the play in China was actually a murder mystery, not a farce--although our visit to Shanghai was such an adventure that our first instinct was to sit down and write a farce about it (that idea's on the back burner for the time being). What was interesting about seeing our some of our plays in Québec and Poland was that both cultures have a deep understanding of the genre of farce, and as such, appeared to enjoy the plays on a level that I hadn't quite seen in the many productions I'd attended in English Canada. That's not to say the English-speaking audience didn't enjoy it; it was more my sense that, despite the fact that the francophone and Polish audiences were seeing translations, the plays were set in a language that they instinctually understood.

BOBBY: You both have worked as actors, and Marcia as a director (even directing Doug in a few productions). How do these other roles influence your work as playwrights?

DOUGLAS: I think the best answer I can offer is this: Marce and I were both actors when we first started working together as playwrights. So, when we got to a part in the writing where we weren't sure whether or not a moment or a bit of business was going to work, we'd simply get up and do it. I think being actors also had something to do with our comfort level when it came to collaborating as writers. Rehearsing and performing a play is an inherently collaborative process, one we were completely at home with; so, writing together just seemed a logical extension of that.

MARCIA: Oh, it all informs everything. When we work together we have a very useful shorthand.

BOBBY: And finally: As we all know, we are living in a very strange time when it comes to theater. Lakewood has managed to open at limited capacity, as Maine has remained relatively safe during the pandemic. Many theaters are struggling, and I know that as a playwright myself, it certainly makes an impact. How do you think theater will move forward during these strange times, and prove itself to be as essential as we all know it is? What do you think of theater companies using platforms like Zoom to present live performances online?

DOUGLAS: I really hesitate to predict where things are going to go, but I'll say this much: I think that, in the short term, live theatre is going to go through an extended period of upheaval. How extended that period is will be a direct result of the state of the pandemic. However, the desire to experience interactive, live performances of all kinds is an innately human trait, and in the long run, I think it's that need for a collective, communal experience that will eventually lead us back to the theatre (and the music hall, the opera, the ballet, etc.) once again.

MARCIA: I look forward to the time when theatres can reopen to full capacity and programming but I think it will take quite some time. Currently our industry is devastated and the future looks very gloomy. I appreciate all the online programming that theatre folk are putting out- but personally I can only handle so much. I miss the "liveness" of theatre. It's just not the same watching on a screen at home. I do think that many good things will come out of this time and on a personal note, I am hopeful that our plays will still be relevant and appealing to theatres and audiences when this is all over.

You can learn more about Douglas E. Hughes and Marcia Kash by visiting their websites:

Douglas E Hughes | Actor / Playwright / Novelist

Website for Marcia Kash

INTERVIEW WITH PLAYWRIGHT NORM FOSTER, CANADA'S MOST PRODUCED PLAYWRIGHT!

 

Norm Foster, Canada's Most Produced Playwright!

Note:  This interview first appeared in Lakewood Theater's Program for their production of Mr. Foster's play, Drinking Alone.

Norm Foster, the author of tonight's entertainment, is the most produced playwright in Canada,

known for delivering the laughs and plenty of heart in his scripts. Lakewood, like Canada, loves Mr.

Foster's works and have produced several of his plays over the years, much to the delight of

audiences like you. He was gracious enough to take some time out of his day to answer some

questions for me about his work, his characters, and the importance of truth in comedy.

BOBBY: While reading reviews of your plays, something critics seem to praise over and over

again is your characters being relatable, like "real people." How important is it for you to keep

characters relatable for the comedic circumstances to work?

NORM: It’s very important for me that my characters are relatable to the audience. I want the

people in the audience to see people they ‘know’ onstage. This heightens the comedy. It’s

funnier when real characters are going through real life situations that could very well happen to

any of us.

BOBBY: While your plays are hilarious, it is also noteworthy how there are tonal shifts to

moments of true poignancy and heart. How do you so skillfully balance comedy and emotion?

Does it all come down to the characters being relatable?

NORM: Balancing the comedy and the emotion is a knack I developed early on in my writing

career. I found that if you have a good mixture of both, it makes the play better. The comedy

makes the emotion run a little deeper, and the poignancy makes the comedy funnier. They

compliment each other. To balance these two, you have to know when to pull back on each

one. If it’s a serious moment, you need to know when the audience needs a break from that

seriousness. That’s when you lighten it up a bit. Going from comedy to a serious moment is a

little more difficult. You have to ease into the seriousness and not make it seem too abrupt a

change. Both elements are made easier if the characters are real people. If they have a truth to

them.

BOBBY: "Drinking Alone" in many ways centers around a dysfunctional family. What do you

think makes family relationships so easy to mine for comedy?

NORM: Families are something we can ALL relate to. That’s what makes them so natural to

write about and why we find them so funny. We have all been through it. Some to a lesser

degree but we all know what’s going on with family dynamics. You can make up the most

bizarre situation, and if a family is involved, we all say “Oh I get it.” When writing a play, if my

idea revolves around a family, like in Drinking Alone, then I know the battle is already half won.

BOBBY: Now that theater is slowly but surely coming alive again, do you think comedy can be

not only a salve for live audiences moving forward, but also a tool to show just how essential

theater can be?

NORM: I think this might be our chance for comedy to finally be taken seriously. And what I

mean by that, is getting the respect that it is due. For some reason people thinks it’s easy to

write a comedy. Really? If you think that, then try writing one. Try and make an audience of 300

or 500 laugh as one. But now, we are all ready to laugh again. We have had enough of hard

times. Comedy to the rescue!!

Comedy to the rescue... I couldn't have said it better myself! For more information about Mr.

Foster and his plays, you can go to his website, www.normfoster.com

A Great Full-Length Play for School and Community Theaters

One of the scenes from Bees are in the Park, performed as a stand alone piece at the Delaware Theatre Arts Festival by the Reedy Point Players

Greetings everyone, and welcome to theater is a sport, my little place on the internet to talk about theater.  My name is Bobby Keniston, and I am a playwright, an actor, and a director, but, most of all, a full-on theater geek.

Today, I'm not feeling incredibly well, so I thought it might be a good day for a blog post focusing on a little self-promotion. I mean, what the heck?  I have the blog, I might as well use it to promote myself from time to time, why not?

A play of mine I'm very proud of, but which doesn't seem to get a whole lot of productions, is a full-length comedy drama I wrote called Bees are in the Park, the title, of course, coming from an old rhyme my sisters and I used to shout out when we were kids--- "Flies are in the city, bees are in the park, the boys and girls are kissing in the d-a-r-k dark, dark, DARK!"

A VERY popular play for school and community theaters these days is a play called Almost, Maine by John Cariani.  I was even in a production myself a few years back.  I am not surprised that it is so widely produced with school and community theaters--- it's funny, has heart, has colorful characters and dialogue, but, most importantly, it is easy to stage and easy to rehearse.  Being a collection of ten-minute, somewhat interlocking vignettes, most with only two characters at time, is kind of a dream for a community theater director.  It's easy to get everyone you need to a rehearsal when you're only rehearsing a two person scene, after all.  And then, it's just a matter of putting it together.  It also is very flexible--- you can double or even triple up some of the parts in the play, or, you can have different actors for each scene. All of these factors, along with the simple settings, make a play very easy to produce, particularly for schools and community theaters with a limited budget.

I wrote Bees are in the Park to be a simple to rehearse, easy-to-produce play, in the same vein, though, believe it or not, I was well in the works of developing it before I ever heard of Almost, Maine.  And, I need to be clear--- it is a VERY different play, with a different feel to it, and very different characters.  However, Bees are in the Park  is a series of interlocking ten to fifteen minute scenes, all taking place at the same park on the same day.   Here's the official synopsis from Brooklyn Publishers website, who so kindly published the piece:

"A beautiful park on a beautiful day is the setting for this full-length interlocking collection of vignettes:  a would-be stepdad and a grumpy little girl, an overprotective mother and her special needs son, a teenage boy trying to tell a girl that he loves her for the first time, and an old couple looking back on their long and lovely life together are the characters who make up this richly textured, poignant, and funny play. Easy to stage, with strong opportunities for character study with young actors, or a perfect community theater piece, Bees are in the Park has something for everyone."

There are seven scenes and epilogue.  They are as follows:

SCENE 1:  SUZY AND THE WOULD-BE STEPDAD in which a young man is taking a little girl to the park.  He used to date the girl's mother, but she broke up with him, and he has missed being a father figure to the little girl.

SCENE 2:  SIMPLE ARITHMETIC in which a teenage boy tries to tell a teenage girl that he is in love with her, but is afraid of ruining their friendship.

SCENE 3:  A FORGETFUL REMEMBRANCE, in which in elderly couple look back on their married life together.  This scene is a real tear-jerker, and may be one of my favorite scenes I've ever written.

ACT TWO:

SCENE 1:  NURSING, in which the would-be stepdad talks to the mother of a special needs boy, as their charges play in the sandbox.

SCENE 2:  SANDBOX, in which Suzy and Albert, two little kids, make a connection while playing.

SCENE 3:  KNOWING WHAT'S RIGHT, in which the teenage girl from Act One, Scene 2, talks with the elderly man from Act One, Scene 3, and he gives her some wise advice.

SCENE 4:  THE NEW MATH, in which the teenage boy gets his answer from the teenage girl.

EPILOGUE:  TOO MUCH, in which the would-be stepdad says goodbye to Suzy after their day at the park.

What I tried to accomplish with this play was to create scenes that have their own individual arc, but also contribute to form a dramatic arc for the piece as a whole.  It is a play about different kinds of love and connection, and I believe, has feelings any audience can relate to.  The play runs about 90 minutes (the Brooklyn website says 70, but I think that's a bit low), and should be performed with an intermission.  It can be performed with as few as 2 males and 2 females, or with as many as 4 males and 4 females.

What I may be most proud of in this play is that it examines the world through different age groups: children, teenagers, a man and a woman in their early thirties, and an elderly couple. I recommend that the parts of the 7 year-old kids be played by actors who are older, or even teenagers, pretending to be little kids.  I believe this offers an excellent opportunity for young actors and community theater performers to work on character study.

With simple settings, it really is a play that any budget could perform.  The park can be as simple or as complex as the director likes--- it's the characters and stories that sell the play.

Here's a testimonial form a school group who did the play.  It comes from Martin Kois, the director for Sierra Lutheran High School:

"This is a perfect play for a smaller theater group, with opportunities to explore many different aspects of acting all at once and get real, meaningful drama without requiring elaborate set or costume.  This show is amazing and has incredible heart!"

I tell you, it was a good day when I read that comment on the website.

I wrote this play with a great deal of love in my heart--- I know it sounds silly or sappy to say, but it's true.  I wrote this play with love, in the hopes of being honest about it, and avoiding sappiness.  If you are interested in reading more about the play, and reading a free sample, you can visit its page on the Brooklyn Publishers website by CLICKING HERE.  Again, the only thing I would say, is that the play is longer than listed there, running about 90 minutes.

Thank you for taking the time to read about a play I am very proud of.  Please check it out if you are interested.  And, if it were to become a big hit, and be produced by hundreds of schools and community theaters across the country... well, I'd definitely be okay with that.

MY PROM DATE WAS A FELON, featured play in this month's Brooklyn Publishers' Newsletter!

Greetings, loyal readers of my blog!

I wanted to let you all know that my play, My Prom Date Was a Felon, is the featured play in Brooklyn Publishers' October newsletter.  If you click HERE, it will take you directly to the newsletter where you can read a new essay I wrote about the play called How This Playwright Finally Went to the Prom (all about how I can live vicariously through my characters), and, until OCTOBER 9TH, you can download a FREE perusal e-script of the play!

As many of you regular readers already know, this is a play that I am very proud of, and I am so excited that this newsletter is giving people a chance to learn more about it and to even read it for free!

I would be remiss if I did not mention that this newsletter also has information and synopses of many other great plays for schools and community theaters, including plays by some of my playwriting pals.  In fact, I'd recommend signing up for the newsletter so you can always see the great stuff that's coming out from the many talented folks at Brooklyn Publishers (who published my very first play and got me started in this business!)

All righty.  I guess that's it.  Again, you can follow the link above, or, hey, I'll make it simple, and say that you can just click HERE!

RULES FOR HIGH SCHOOL DATING: My New Play, "Avoiding the Pitfalls of High School Dating" Now Available!

My New Play, Available Now From Eldridge!  Click HERE to order!

Greetings everyone.  My name is Bobby Keniston, and I'd like to welcome you to Theater is a Sport. 

I often like to read about writer, how they write, what inspires them, and even the nuts and bolts, day-to-day of their process.  In that tradition, I figured I would talk a little bit about the writing of my latest published play, now available from Eldridge, called Avoiding the Pitfalls of High School Dating.

As a high school drama teacher, I know how difficult it can be to put on a play with a limited budget and a cast full of kids who are busy participating in several activities. I wanted to try writing a play that was very simple to stage with a very limited set and props, and that consisted of a series of easily rehearsed scenes, something that could be put together in pieces, not necessarily requiring the entire cast at every rehearsal. 

One day, I found an article online that offered 10 tips about successful high school dating.  It was a good article with good advice.  My mind, which likes to take such things and push them to the most farcical and absurd extremities, immediately started to imagine a seminar or infomercial with two very fake hosts talking about their rules for "Avoiding the Pitfalls of High School Dating".  I could immediately picture these seminar hosts, a man and a woman, doing their best to sell this product.  I started brainstorming ideas for examples of their techniques in action, basically imagining how teenagers could take their advice too literally and destroy what could have otherwise been perfectly acceptable dates. 

This is where the fun really began for me as a writer.  Coming up with ideas for comically disastrous dates doesn't feel like work for me--- it feels like fun.  Even more fun, is coming up with the characters who will make these dates disastrous.

That's how Lenny and Matilda were born.  Lenny, a potential dater, is now what you call "typical dating material", with his odd quirks and obsession with Castles and Kingdoms, his favorite role-playing game.  Matilda, too, certainly has her eccentricities--- not least of which is a fondness for funerals.

Throw in the two hosts, Lucky Daye and Starry Knight, and some poor befuddled blind daters, and I felt I was cooking with a teenage comedy that would actually make teenagers laugh, and a script that ANY high school with ANY budget could easily stage and have the audience rolling in the aisles!

I'm not going to give too much away about the "dates" themselves, but, trust me, they are not dates that you will likely forget any time soon. 

Once I had figured out these characters, the writing came pretty easily, with only one big hiccup that was easily solved after some meditating (I like to meditate while I'm running, by the way.)

So, if you're a drama director looking for a simple one act that's a guaranteed crowd pleaser, I invite you to take a look at Avoiding the Pitfalls of High School Dating!  And if you do decide to try it out for a production, feel free to drop me a line to let me know what you think at theater.is.a.sport@gmail.com. 

Thanks again, and remember--- theater is not just a craft or an art form.  It is also a sport.

Writing Inspiration: How and Why I Wrote "I Don't Mind That You're Ugly"

The Play Script for I Don't Mind That You're Ugly, available from Brooklyn Publishers

Hello ladies and gentlemen!  My name is Bobby Keniston, and I will be your host at Theater is a Sport.  Today I would like to talk to you about my writing inspiration for my play I Don't Mind That You're Ugly, a one act romantic comedy.  I believe it was the sixth play I had accepted for publication, and it is one of my favorites, largely because I think it is sweet and funny, hopefully like I am in real life.

It is no secret that here in America, many people have issues with their appearance.  For better or worse, and with help from the media, a good number of human beings obsess a little bit about the way that they look.  It was this little obsession with appearance that were the seeds of the play that would become I Don't Mind That You're Ugly.

The story is about an "average looking" (whatever that means) guy named Clyde, who is waiting at THE FANCIEST RESTAURANT IN TOWN for his girlfriend Kira.  He is planning to propose to her.  Before Kira arrives, the staff of the restaurant, who are pretty rude, do not really believe that Clyde is waiting for anyone.... how could he have a girlfriend?  Already, we begin to see that Clyde has some feelings of "not being good-looking enough" for his girlfriend.  When Kira arrives, and looks stunningly beautiful, everyone has difficulty believing that she could be with Clyde.  But Kira is a sweetheart, whose true beauty really is from within.  Clyde and Kira's dinner keeps being interrupted, once by a model talent scout (who is a bit sleazy to say the least), an overanxious restaurant hotess who wants to seat Kira where she can be seen in the "hot people" room, a busboy with a crush, a lusty chef, and weak-bladdered old woman.  Throughout their conversation, Clyde tells Kira that he thinks she is so beautiful, and he's just so "average looking", and Kira, who is not thinking, says, offhandedly, "Oh, baby, I don't mind that you're ugly."  At which point, the play takes a huge turn.  Will Clyde and Kira wind up together, or will insecurities dash their dreams.

I think a good number of people have insecurities.  I sure do.  I have been told that I am handsome, and, maybe 3 days out of 7,  I can sort of see that.  But the rest of the time, I do feel incredibly "average".  And what does that mean?  "Average".  For that matter, what does "Beautiful" mean?

In this play, beauty, ultimately comes from love even more than it does for appearances. 

I am fond of this play because for a simple, short, romantic comedy, it is not only funny, but, as I re-read it today, has genuine passion and human feeling.  Kira talking about the way she loves Clyde's smell, for example, or when she takes his face in her hands and calls him "My beautiful man", I almost wanted to cry, it effected me so much.  And no, I'm not tooing my own horn, I'm just so proud of a sweet moment such as that.

The writing of the playcame in June, 2009, and I read the first draft out loud with a dear friend of mine, who really encouraged me about it, and offered a few funny little changes that you can see in the play still today.  I wrote the first draft in a couple weeks, which is actually a little longer than a good number of one act first drafts take me.  I think I wanted to really be precise about the points of body image and self-esteem that I was trying to get across, and make sure I was still being funny at the same time.

I Don't Mind That You're Ugly was published by Brooklyn, and, so far, it has been the most produced play I have with them.  I have received wonderful feedback from schools all over the country who have enjoyed being in the show.  I remember seeing a YouTube video, a series of interviews from high school students about parts they were playing in an evening of one-acts, and it was cool to hear how they interpreted the characters in I Don't Mind That You're Ugly.

I am proud of this play, and proud of the feelings that inspired it.  I think, in this case, I really accomplished what I set out to accomplish, and that makes me very happy.  In fact, a writer can't ask for more than that.

Thanks for tuning in to Theater is a Sport.  If you would like to learn more about me, you may follow these links:  www.brookpub.com, www.histage.com, www.playscripts.com, and www.hitplays.com and search for me, Bobby Keniston, and read about my plays and look at free samples.

UNTIL TOMORROW....

LYAFTF

And remember--- theater is  not only an art form, it is also a sport.

ARE GYM TEACHERS CRAZY SCARY FOR SELF-PROCLAIMED GEEKS?: The Inspiration for Writing My Hit Play, "How I Learned To Stop Being Afraid of My Gym Teacher"

CLICK HERE TO ORDER THIS PLAY!

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.  My name is Bobby Keniston, and I will be your host this evening at Theater is a Sport.  I am a drama teacher at Foxcroft Academy, and a published with playwright with 21 titles for the youth, high school and community theater markets.  I hope you feel at home at my blog if you are a theatre-lover or a drama geek.  I am both of these things, and I mean the terms in a good way. 

From time to time, I like to share a little bit about the plays I write.  This is not for self-aggrandizing, although it is nice to toot your own horn once in a while (it's good for the self-confidence).  The real reason I like to share a bit about how certain plays were written and published is because I, as a writer, love to read about how writers write what they have written, their process, their thoughts while writing, etc.  I find it educational and pretty encouraging for my own work, so, I figure I will offer the same thing for anyone out there who might be interested in how and why I write what I write, and how I went about getting it published.  At the very least, I hope you find it interesting, or, if not, that at the very VERY least, it might give you some hope knowing that if a guy like me can get his work out there, that you can too with a little patience and hard work. 

How I Learned to Stop Being Afraid of My Gym Teacher was the eighth play (if I remember correctly) I was fortunate to have published, and my very first with Eldridge.  Like all of my plays, I have difficulty pinpointing the exact moment that the inspiration hit me.  I knew I wanted to write something that was about "geeks".  In fact, the "geeks" in this play use the term in an empowering fashion.  I also knew I wanted to address the issue of bullying, but not in a preachy way, and to explore the idea of an adult bully as well. 

Then one night, as I sat down to write, I just wrote out the sentence, "How I Learned to Stop Being Afraid of My Gym Teacher."  It made me smile.  And I thought of a young man who was afraid of gym class.

I should jump in right here and tell you that I never had a cruel gym teacher.  I was lucky.  In elementary school, my gym teacher was very kind, in middle school, my gym teacher was very fair and nice to me, and in high school, my gym teacher was actually very encouraging to someone like me who was not, shall we say, a natual athlete (except when it came to volleyball, interestingly enough). 

Having said this, I think I should now point out that I was afraid of gym class, however.  As I said, I was not a natural athlete, I didn't immediately take to sports.  I wasn't plain awful, per se, but it took me time to get my bearings, and I often felt embarrassed and a little useless in my gym classes.  And yes, there boys who were much better than I was who would pick on me.  I can't say I was terribly "bullied" because many people have gotten it much worse than I have, but I did often feel like dirt, which made me wish I could just skip out on gym class for the rest of my life. 

In any case, the protagonist of How I Learned to Stop Being Afraid of My Gym Teacher, a young man named Will, was based off of me to some extent.  He is a good student, a friendly personality, who happens to be afraid of going to gym class.  Will, of course, has an extra reason:  the formidable gym teacher, Mr. Breakwater, who, in his last year of teaching, is just as ferocious as he was when he first started.  Mr. Breakwater hates weakness and hates excuses.  He also appears to hate Will. 

Lucky for Will, he has a girl in his gym class named Riley who is always there to help him out (and, she's cute, too!).  He also has two wonderful friends named Ellard and Margie, who help him get through the day.  It is his friend Ellard who calls them "The Geek Squad", as though they were superheroes (Ellard and Margie are also a bit obsessed with Star Wars, which plays a part in another play they appear in). 

Will's father had Mr. Breakwater for a gym teacher, and is still traumatized about it.  In fact, upon hearing Mr. Breakwater's name, he has to go and hide in the bathtub.  Thus, Will's mother decides to talk to Mrs. Puffin, the soap-opera addicted principal, but doesn't really get anywhere with it.  You see, Mrs. Puffin happens to think Mr. Breakwater is the bees knees (she likes his "buns of steel"). 

Will eventually finds help from his older sister, who had found a way to deal with Mr. Breakwater when she was in school.  She shares a secret with him that holds the key to taming the beast.  But what is most impressive, I think, is how Will decides to handle this secret.

I am fond of this play and actually remember having a great amount of fun writing it.  The first few scenes flew out of me rather quickly.  I do remember I became a little stuck about midway through the writing, thinking to myself, "how is Will going to give Mr. Breakwater his comeuppance?"  It was at that point that I thought about giving Will an older sister who was in college, and who  knew some things about the harsh gym teacher. 

If I were to pick a play of mine that is my funniest, this one would probably be it.  Aside from the characters I have already mentioned, there is also a child psychiatrist named Dr. Brattigan who I had such a good time writing--- she is a stitch and a half, loves to play Jenga, and is probably much better at her job than she lets on.  There are also the characters of Alexis ( a lip gloss covered texting fiend) who Will misguidedly has a crush on, and Marco, a flat-out bully, who leads a Jock Chorus in his attacks against Will during gym class.  Both Alexis and Marco also show up in another play as well. 

After I figured out that Will had an older sister who would be able to help him out, the rest of the play came together rather quickly.  I would say the total writing time for the first draft was about two weeks.  I then read it out loud with a group of people who were doing a grown up play I had written, and hearing it out loud confirmed that I had a winner, even though it needed some adjustments.

That may sound egocentric, what I just said, but I don't mean it to be.  Every once in a great while in your life as a writer, there are some pieces that you know are winners.  They have a certain feeling about them--- for one thing, they read well, actors can jump right in and bring it to life pretty easily. 

I think what tipped me off the most is that my goal to make the play really funny, but have a semi-serious, poignant ending, really worked out well.  It felt like a satisfying conclusion.  I was very proud of it. 

I decided to send it to Eldridge because I was, and am, a big fan of Eldridge's catalogue.  My dad was a drama director as I was growing up, so I remembered always flipping through the Eldridge catalogue when I was kid.  Playwrights seemed like some magic far away beings back then (when, in fact, we're actually pretty darn accessible).  I had submitted to Eldridge twice before and been rejected, albeit with kind, constructive notes from real people, and not just a form.  I figured I would give Gym Teacher a go with them.  So, I once again followed their submission guidelines, wrote a little cover-letter e-mail with my bio and a paragraph synopsis of the play, attached the play as a word document, wished myself luck and sent it off.

IN LESS THAN 24 HOURS, THEY E-MAILED ME BACK TO MAKE AN OFFER ON THE PLAY

This was, and still is, the fastest turnaround I have ever had for a play being accepted for publication.  The title caught their eye, they read it, liked it, and made an offer.  I signed the contracts, wrote up some stuff for them, and, before you knew it, How I Learned to Stop Being Afraid of My Gym Teacher was an Eldridge play by Bobby Keniston, and my name was next to some of the all time big writers in my field (Tim Kelly, Craig Sodaro, Pat Cook, etc.)  It was a very exciting and gratifying experience for me.

The play has done well.  It holds the record so far for highest number of productions in a single year.  I have also received some very nice fan e-mails from students, which is always rewarding.  I got an especially nice one from a student in a drama class who had to read a play and write a report about it, and he chose mine.  This young person was so complimentary about the play, and what it meant to him, that I misted up a bit when I read his message. 

Again, not trying to toot my own horn, but if you're looking for a proven winner one-act for your school or community theater, I do recommend How I Learned to Stop Being Afraid of My Gym Teacher--- it's very easy to stage, has flexible casting with doubling possible, and very funny and touching.  And if you do produce it and like it, please let me know.

Thanks for reading about my play.  I hope you are all happy, healthy, and full of the sport that theater is. 

This is Bobby Keniston, saying good night until next time.

The Top Ten Most Important American Plays: A Futile (But Fun) Endeavor

Greetings, ladies and gentlemen.  My name is Bobby Keniston, and I'd like to welcome you to Theater is a Sport.  What once started out as a daily blog, has, unfortunately, become more of a "every other day or so" blog, but it is still my little writing on the vast wall of the internet, and I enjoy it very much.  I hope you will, too.

Just for kicks, I recently Googled "Top Ten American Plays", and the very first result I got was an article from the Denver Post in 2010 called "The 10 Most Important Amercan Plays".  The article admits it gathered its results from an informal survey of theatre professionals.  Their results were as follows:

1.  Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
2.  Angels in America by Tony Kushner
3.  A Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams
4.  Long Day's Journey Into Night by Eugene O'Neill
5.  Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? by Edward Albee
6.  Our Town by Thornton Wilder
7.  The Glass Menagerie by Tennessee Williams
8.  A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry
9.  The Crucible by Arthur Miller
10.  Fences by August Wilson

If you would like to read more about the way this list was determined, here's the link to the article:  http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14385361

If you want to wait and read the rest of what I have to say first, that's cool, too. 

So...

I'm not going to lie--- it's an impressive list of plays, no doubt about it.  However, as I looked at it, I couldn't help but feel there were some glaring gaps, which made me question what the word "important" means to the people who were surveyed.  

For example:  are there no important American comedies?  Really?  Kaufman and Hart were just hacks because they tried to make us laugh?  The Man Who Came To Dinner is just a piece of fluff, even though it has been an inspiration to just about every future comedic playwright? 

Speaking of comedies, is it TRULY fair to disregard one of America's most financially and crowd-pleasing playwrights of all-time?  Of course I'm talking about Neil Simon, who, more than once in his career, had multiple hit plays running on Broadway at the same time.  Now, I suppose the argument might be that "commercial" success does not mean that a writer is "important".  I can buy that.  But, to be honest, Mr. Simon has justifiably become a part of the Broadway culture, not only from a fiscal standpoint, but also in terms of what it means to be a "lauded" playwright.  He's won three Tonys, a Pulitzer, and was awarded the Mark Twain Award.  Not to metion that his autobiography Rewrites should be required reading for anyone thinking about becoming a writer. 

Another glaring absence I was struck by was the absence of musicals.  Granted, the title says most important American plays, but, when reading the article, many of the people voting did mention how certain musicals would probably be recognized in years to come, so I figured that opened the door for me to talk about them.  Carousel is a great American musical, adapted from the play Lilliom by Molnar (who was very happy with the adaptation).  Not to mention the few musicals that have won the Pulitzer Prize, like How To Succeed in Business Without Really Trying (of course, this has a double whammy against it--- musical and comedy), Sunday in the Park With George, A Chorus Line, and Next To Normal (the most recent musical to win the coveted award), just to name 4 of the 8 musicals that have won. 

Gosh, "important" is such a tricky word.

I think what shocked me the most was the fact that only one woman was represented on the list, Lorraine Hansberry for A Raisin in the Sun.  Perhaps a good number of people will say that the great female playwrights are still too young to be included, we need to see if they'll stand the test of time.  Try saying that to Lillian Hellman, Gertrude Stein, Marsha Norman... all, who, I think, have done well hanging around.  Same with Paula Vogel, Pulitzer winner for How I Learned to Drive, a brutal yet human play about incest, or Suzan Lori-Parks, author of wonderful plays like Venus and Topdog/Underdog, another Pulitzer Winner (Ms. Lori-Parks is also a MacArthur Genius Grant recipient). 

Yes, I can understand avoiding more modern plays for the list, I can, really, even pretty good ones like August:  Osage County by Tracy Letts or Doubt, American Buffalo, etc., etc.

Etc., Etc.

However, it became less of a forgivable mistake when you look at the playwrights who are doubled on the list.  No one is going to say that Arthur Miller is not a great American writer.  He is.  But so was Clifford Odets, and where the hell was he on the list (even though his movement with the Group Theatre really changed the way theatre was perceived).  Yes, Miller is great, and even other plays of his could have been on the list, particularly A View from the Bridge.  But a list like this is too short for people to be repeated.  

Yet I forgive the two by Miller more than the ones by Williams.  I can deal with A Streetcar Named Desire, in fact, I even agree with it.  It's a searing drama by a passionate writer.  But I would argue that there are HUNDREDS of plays that deserve to be on this list more than The Glass Menagerie, a slightly annoying memory play with a character it is difficult to root for because she doesn't do a damn thing to help herself. 

And yeah, I would call The Skin of Our Teeth Thornton Wilder's masterpiece, but I suppose I'm in the minority on that one... Our Town has become a staple of community theatres that play it as a simple Americana drama as opposed to the satire it really is. 

So, I'm going to put myself on the line and make my own list.  It is a futile endeavor, and one that I probably won't even be completely satisfied with, but I will do it anyway, and I will try to explain my choices.  Please feel free to leave comments telling me what glaring mistakes I have made.  I won't mind. 

1.  Awake and Sing by Clifford Odets, because he took the family drama to new, naturalistic heights in his attempts for realism on stage.
2.  Long Day's Journey Into Night, another family drama so passionate and personal that O'neill didn't even want it produced until he had been dead twenty years.
3.  The Crucible, by Arthur Miller.  I choose this over Salesman, even though Salesman is Greek Tragedy for the working man, because it is important for Americans to see how we repeat ourselves with our witch hunts and hysteria.
4.  The Zoo Story by Edward Albee, more than Virginia Woolf, because Virginia Woolf, while brilliant, in the end proves that the greatest "truth" we've been following was actually an illusion, while The Zoo Story, in about one hour, captures the desperation and exile of the American transient, aching with loneliness and a desire to connect in a city where connection feels damn near impossible.
5.  Oh Dad, Poor Dad, Mamma's Hung You in the Closet and I'm Feeling So Sad, because it is the wild work of a young man, Arthur Kopit, bringing the absurdism and tragicomedy of the French to an American viewpoint.  Not to mention its send-up of sex, class, motherhood, and so much more.  Most shockingly, it delivers a message how people will often choose oppression over freedom if given the choice, a wonderful message for the decade in which it was written (the 1960s)
6.  Joe Turner's Come and Gone, by August Wilson.  I prefer this to Fences for the passion and the grand epiphany at the end.
7.  How I Learned to Drive, because it tackles a heartbreaking subject in such a human, but theatrical manner.  Vogel also has a gift for dialogue and creating characters who are relatable.
8.  Burn This, by Lanford Wilson.  Wilson never wanted to be known for writing "gay plays" but plays about human beings.  Burn This is just that.  Love this play.  Love it, love it, love it.
9.  The Odd Couple, by Neil Simon.  While this is not my personal favorite of Simon's (that would be one of his darker comedies), I consider it an important American play because it went way beyond the wildest notion of success for a playwright.  It permeated the culture, even with the term "odd couple".  I will also add that within this play, Simon truly begins to show he is a writer who can derive humor from characters with humanity, and not just from one-liners.  It is an important play in his growth as a writer.
10.  I have to go with Next To Normal, book and lyrics by Brian Yorkey and music by Tom Kitt.  I had the pleasure of seeing this on Broadway at the Booth Theater with the original cast (although J. Robert Spencer's understudy was on the night I saw it, but he was amazing, too).  We return to the family drama, only, this time, it is a modern twist, somewhat relatable to O'Neill, but, instead of addiction, it tackles mental illness and its effect on a family.  Brave, daring, with a rocking score and a tight script, Next To Normal has perhaps, for me anyway, set a standard for musical theatre that will  be very difficult to live up to.

Okay, there's my list.  Again, feel free to tell me how wrong I am in the comments. 

In the meantime, thanks for checking it out, and I hope you come back to my blog, because... well... theater is a sport, and why not celebrate that?

https://www.facebook.com/#!/TheaterIsASport
https://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Bobby-Keniston-Playwright-Page/148232788536601
http://www.doollee.com/PlaywrightsK/keniston-bobby.html