30 PLAYS IN 30 DAYS: Play #23 "The Master Builder" by Henrik Ibsen

 

Henrik Ibsen, a master builder of plays

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 #23

The Master Builder by Henrik Ibsen

There is a reason that we call the great ones the great ones (hint: it's because they are great). Henrik Ibsen is the most frequently performed dramatist in the world after Shakespeare (his play A Doll's House was the most performed play in the world in 2006). The Norwegian playwright and theater director is rightfully considered one of the founders of modern theater as we know it. Although his early verse play Peer Gynt has some surreal elements to it, after that he largely was interested in writing only realistic prose. His influence is clear in writers like G.B. Shaw, Eugene O'Neill, and even James Joyce. he was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1902, 1903, and 1904.

And yet, for whatever reason, I have not read all of his works. Before today, I had read his play Ghosts while a student at Boston University (a play in which we know a character has syphilis without the word every being said), Hedda Gabler (I don't know many people who have studied theater haven't read that one) and A Doll's House. 

I absolutely loved reading The Master Builder today. While it feels strange I that it took me this long, I also like to believe we read the things we read when we do for a reason, and it is possible that I might not have loved this play as much had I read it as a young man (or, younger man, right?) as an assignment. In many ways, Ibsen is the master builder, or at least the master craftsman, with so many playwrights like myself discovering that they are eager apprentices. 

The play was first published in 1892, and while it continues his quest for realism, it is also deeply infused with symbolism. Halvard Solness is the title character--- a middle-aged man, desperately afraid of the younger generation of builders, to the extent that he has kept one in his employ to clip his wings and keep him from rising, going so far as to encourage the young man's fiance to fall in love with him to use her to keep him in his employ. Solness lost his two young sons in what he thinks is the direct aftermath of a fire--- a fire he believes he may have had the power to will. In fact, Solness believes that he has this power in other ways, to bend people in a sense because of his will. That the "trolls" and "devils" help in this way. 

Along comes Hilda Wangel, who I have learned is a character who appeared in Ibsen's earlier play The Lady From the Sea as well. I hope to read that play, too, because I think Hilda is an amazingly drawn character. She talks of having seen the Master Builder when she was but a child of 12 or 13, when he climbed to the top of a church, to the highest tower, to adorn it with the traditional wreath upon completion of the project. She also tells Solness how he had promised to make her a princess one day and had even kissed her (gross). He told her in ten years he would come and take her away. And now she has come to him for the kingdom he promised her. 

The dynamic between Solness, afraid of his middle-age and relevancy and Hilda, the one aspect of the younger generation he is drawn to, is the heart of the play. And while sometimes Hilda's motivations seem a bit inconsistent--- does she want him to find happiness by being more grounded, or is she the temptress bird of prey who wants him to build the castles in the sky even if it means crashing down?--- it is often "quite thrilling" (as Hilda would say) to read their back and forth. 

There is much more I could write about this play, but I encourage you all to read it for yourselves if you haven't yet. You'll be glad you did...

One last note:  The play has very obvious biographical elements, as Ibsen had a brief affair with an 18 year-old woman who apparently delighted in stealing husbands (but he was in his early 60s, so maybe it was more his responsibility), of who he said gave him a "high, painful happiness". And while she didn't "steal" him, he said he stole her--- for his play. 

Writing With a Message: How and Why I Wrote "The Re-Programming of Jeremy"

The Poster from St. Paul's School's Production of my play, "The Re-Programming of Jeremy"

So, once upon a time, I wrote this play...

Actually, if you're familiar with this blog, you know I've written a number of plays.  I rarely shut about it.  In fact, in the interest of self-promotion, I will occasionally write things like "You can learn more about my plays by clicking HERE or HERE or HERE," and, of course, please feel free to do so if you're of the mind.  However, you can click on all of those links and check out all of those pages, and even though you'll learn about many of the plays, you won't learn about the play I'm going to talk about today.  This one, The Re-Programming of Jeremy remains unpublished.

But unpublished does not mean without a life of its own.

I wrote The Re-Programming of Jeremy, in its original form, back in 2010, at a rather feverish pace. The play is about a gay teen named Jeremy, who has killed himself after bullying at school and home, and then being sent to a "straight camp," that was designed to "re-program" him, cure him of his homosexuality.  The play is a series of monologues told by Jeremy's friends, family, a teacher, and the woman who ran the straight camp he was sent to.  In the first draft, Jeremy appeared only once, near the end of the play, and gave the longest monologue of all, about tolerance and acceptance.

I wrote the play in two writing sessions, at the Thompson Free Library in Dover-Foxcroft, ME. There was company at my house, and a lot going on, which made it difficult to write, and I had this burning idea I had to get down, so I brought my computer to the library and wrote fast.  The play has gone through a number of drafts since that day in 2010, but it a good deal of what I wrote over those two days still remains.

I suppose the question is, why did I feel it was so important for me to get this story down on paper? Here's the thing--- every time I heard a news story about a gay teen who committed suicide, my heart would break.  Whenever I heard a news story about a gay teen who was being bullied and ostracized, my heart would break.  Whenever I heard a news story about a so-called religious group picketing a funeral of a homosexual, not only would my heart break, I would become so angry and disgusted that people could be so cruel in the name of God.  You see, I do identify myself as a Christian, and I think Christians who spew hate speak are not really Christians at all.  Certainly they have the right not to agree with a certain type of lifestyle, no matter how much I disagree with them, but how does hate solve anything?

I had been thinking for a number of years about writing a play that deals with the subject, but every time I did, it was a piece that was attacking the issue from a very angry, overly satirical way, a way that was just as political as it was sarcastic.  A painfully dark comedy type of play.  And while I enjoy a play like that, and have written others about different subjects in that vein, that style didn't feel right to me inside for the story I wanted to tell.

I knew I wanted it to be a HUMAN story first and foremost, where the characters weren't exaggerated.  I knew I wanted the play to transcend the idea of politics, or, at least, blend the political and the personal.  And, of course, I didn't just want to be writing "with a message".  Yes, all playwrights have something to say, and all playwrights, because they are human beings, have thoughts, opinions, and issues they hold very dear.  But to attack a play just from an issue is a tricky proposition, and, at times, an empty one.  Political theater is great, and can make a difference.  It's been around since theater began.  But, if you don't have characters you can relate to, a strong story, and genuine humanity, then you are not serving any message you may be trying to impart.

I was thinking about my idea one day, when suddenly, I just knew I wanted a character to be named Jeremy, and that Jeremy didn't want to be re-programmed.  I have a female friend from college who's name is Jeremy, though she's always been called Mimi. I think that's why the name Jeremy was so strong for me, even though the character is male.  Just having the name for the character made him real to me, a human being, especially since he was named after someone who has always been a great friend to me.  And so I began to imagine Jeremy.  I didn't want him to be flamboyant, or stereotypical, but just a normal teenager with fears, joys, and hopes like any other.  But also knowing he was "different" from the norm.  And then I began to imagine his family, and how is mother wanted to understand him, but couldn't, and how is father tried so hard to love his son, but had his own demons he couldn't conquer.  And it just sort of spread from there.

There's a play I've always liked a great deal called The Incident at San Bajo by Brad Korbesmeyer.  It is a long one act that won the Heidemann Award from the Actors Theatre of Louisville.  It tells the story of a man who tried selling an elixir to residents of a trailer park.  Turns out, this man then poisoned the water of the park, and what he was selling was the antidote.  Only seven people bought it from him.  These seven people tell the story in a series of monologues.  It's a great show, captivating, and I had the chance to direct it once with a high school group.  I love how the show has a documentary feel to it, described by its publisher as a 60 Minutes segment.  The actors answer unheard questions, and tell their story.  They are in different locations, represented by different areas of the stage, and are very different types of people.

I thought this aesthetic would serve the story I wanted to tell very well.  So I decided to give it that same "documentary" type feel in my script.  When Jeremy, who is dead when the play begins, finally does appear, he is somewhat otherworldly, a complete break from the documentary, which had an effect I thought would prove to be powerful.

By writing the play as a series of monologues, it allowed me to get deeply inside each of the characters.  Now, I've never been a teenage girl, or a jock, or a gay teen for that matter, but every character, in some way, came alive for me in some way.  Even the Rev., who's views on homosexuality were the complete opposite of mine.  I found myself digging deep for the humanity of each and every one of them.  Trying to understand their beliefs and opinions, even though it was difficult at times.  And by doing so, not only do I feel the play has a strong message for audiences, the act of writing reinforced a strong message to me--- we are all people.  And though sometimes people are capable of being cruel, even without knowing they are being cruel, they are still people. It is so easy to lose sight of such things when we focus strictly on the political side of an issue.

Even though Jeremy has never been published, it remains one of my favorites of my scripts, and contains some of the best writing I have ever done.

I have a great deal more to say about The Re-Programming of Jeremy--- the initial production, which I self-produced, the wonderful people who believed in the show and helped make it stronger, and how, even now, I am working towards getting the script into as many hands and venues as possible--- but all of this will be reserved for tomorrow's blog post.  So if your curious to learn more about it,  and how it's been rewritten after different productions, and how it's changed over the years, come back tomorrow and read PART TWO of my discussion on the play.

(CLICK HERE to read part two)

And if you are a producer, or teacher, or community theater director who might be interested in reading the show and producing it, drop me a message at theater.is.a.sport@gmail.com.  The licensing rates are very negotiable and fair, and I have seen first hand how audiences react to the piece (which I'll discuss tomorrow).

Until next time--- remember, it's great to write with a message, but make sure the message comes packaged with deep characters and a good story.  And don't be afraid to let your writing teach you something along the way--- it's a great feeling.

Should Community Theater Worry About Accents?: When and When Not To Attempt Different Dialects in Your Production

My Cast for "The Importance of Being Earnest"--- I made them do British Accents
 

Greetings fellow theater lovers and drama geeks!  My name is Bobby Keniston, and I would like to welcome you to Theater is a Sport, the only blog I know of that maintains beyond a shadow of a doubt that Theater is, in fact, a sport.

Right now, I am in a play at the beautiful Lakewood Theater in Madison, ME, called "Sherlock Holmes and the Adventure of the Suicide Club" by Jeffrey Hatcher.  Recently, an issue has presented itself that I have encountered several times before in community and school theatre:

should we do the accents or not?

This is an important question, but the answer isn't always clear. 

In this play, I am playing duel roles, one is of a German man called Mr. George, the other, Inspector Micklewhite, a Scotland Yard British fellow. 

I have had experience with accents.  When I was in college, I was in a play called "The Baltimore Waltz" by Paula Vogel, in which I had to slip in and out of several different European dialects. 

I will say up front that I love accents.  I love working on them, learning them--- they can do wonders to add to the realism, the musicality, the rhythm and color of a production.  In a perfect world, I would say that every community theatre, when doing a play that requires accents, should attempt them.

The Key Word here is ATTEMPT.

When  I was in middle school, a film called "Robin Hood:  Prince of Thieves" came out to much fanfare and great success.  Blockbuster that it proved to be, there was not one review of the film that failed to mention that Kevin Costner, in the role of Robin Hood, did not use an English accent.  Surprising, perhaps, but, by all accounts, he attempted, and couldn't get the accent quite right.  I personally think the filmmaker made the right choice to have him just drop it, because a poor or inconsistent accent is troublesome and distracting. 

Others are brilliant at accents, of course.  Peter Sellers, Meryl Streep, Daniel Day-Lewis, to name but a few. 

Some thoughts:

WHEN YOU SHOULD USE AN ACCENT IN COMMUNITY OR SCHOOL THEATRE

1. When it is absolutely necessary for the play.  In the picture above (as it says in the caption) is of a lovely cast of people for a production of "The Importance of Being Earnest" by Oscar Wilde, that I directed at the Center Theatre in Dover-Foxcrft, ME.  I made my cast learn English accents because I felt is was vital for the humor, rhythm and Wilde-ness of the play.  I was, and am, convinced that the humor in that show does not land the same way in plain old American dialect.  People are free to disagree, but as director, it was my call.  I am happy to report that I had a very hard-working cast who rose to the challenge with the help of a lovely dialect cd (more on those later)

2.  When you have a cast that is very facile with accents.  In that case, why not?

3.  If other characters make note of a character's accent.

4.  When it serves an educational purpose.  This last school year, I made a group of my students learn the English accent for a play they were in because it added to the play, but also because I felt it would be an opportunity for them to learn just how specific accents can be.  And, at the school level, EDUCATION should come first (especially in high school).


WHEN YOU SHOULD JUST NOT BOTHER

1.  If one of your actors cannot hold a convincing or consistent accent, let it go.

2.  If the accent is so bad that it is distracting, let it go.

3.  If the actors are only focusing on their accents and not their characters, let it go.
(Note:  *  For me, accents can be a key into finding a character, but, for others, they're head is so wrapped up in the accent, that they lose sight of everything else.  This is not advisable.  Character is more important.  Looking and listening is more important.)

4.  If the accent is making the actor almost impossible to understand, let it go.

These are just a few guidelines I've picked up over the years. 

It should be noted that an accent is what we would call a "given circumstance" of sorts, and, it is a lovely thing to achieve if possible.  However, it is important to remember that an accent ADDS to a play and character, and is not THE PLAY or CHARACTER.  In fact, in a sense, an accent, particularly at the community theatre level, is a garnish--- can be tasty, but with a real chance of being overdone.  Be cautious.  Sometimes, just adding a flavor of an accent can work and not jumping into the deep end.  For example, maybe instead of a thick English accent, an actor can just clip their words some to give the feeling of being upper crust. 

If you do choose to pursue accents, and there's never harm in trying, I have always had a great deal of success with David Alan Stern, who has a wonderful series of different dialect cds.  I know there are plenty of others out there, but he's a lot of fun, and he breaks it down simply, with many call and repeat exercises.  Google the man's name, and you'll find a bunch of stuff about him.

All right.  That's enough for today.  I have to go listen to my German dialect CD and see if I can get this thing down by opening night!

Until next time, please remember--- theater is a sport!

To find Theater is a Sport on Facebook, follow this link:  https://www.facebook.com/TheaterIsASport

To learn more about Bobby the Playwright, click here, or here, or here , or, finally, here.

People in the photo:  Front:  Raelene and Robert Keniston
Back:  Tracy Michaud Stutzman, Teresa Myers, Sandra Beaulieu, Frank Applebee, Chelle Atwatter, Lucas Boffin, and Mathias Ringle.