Whew. This was a hard math day. We read through the script this morning, and I was thrilled to hear the actors really give it their all. In fact, they were willing to work hard through the entire day to get up to speed on Peking Opera. Obviously, it would be impossible to learn anything, so this made for hard math as they tried to download as much of the movement vocabulary into their bodies and minds. I wished we had more time but there never seems to be enough.
The workshop director came up with an idea for the opening, which was intriguing. Because the play is told entirely in the style of Peking Opera, he wanted to ground it with a bookend device. He wanted to have the play be told from the perspective of a real Bachelor Man who was reading a letter from his son, and the Peking Opera world would be his imagination recounting his experiences in Canada.
While I love the idea of using sounds and visuals to sell the fact that this Monkey King tale is actually an allegory for a piece of Canadian history, I didn't agree with his interesting idea. This is the plight of a playwright. Every suggestion has to be weighed against the needs of a play. Is an idea coming from something that is missing from the script or is it an idea that just seems cool but is unsupported? I resisted the suggestion mainly because I felt like it would raise more questions (in a bad way). For example, why would the bachelor man go into the world of Chinese opera? Or how could he see what was happening to his son? How could this intimate memory work with the highly-presentational nature of Peking Opera? Most important of all, what is the dramatic thruline for the device? If it started with the man reading a letter and ended with him finishing the letter, then the bookend device has no relevance or conflict. It'd just be there for the sake of bookending the play, and I couldn't justify its existence. Also, I think a bookend puts an audience is a position of superior knowledge, and that takes away some of the magic of discovery. A bookend either makes the Peking Opera story ironic or bittersweet. I definitely don't want it to be ironic, and while I like the bittersweet ending, I think that the cost of the bookend would be higher than the rewards.
My director's argument was that the bookend would clarify that the story is an allegory for the Bachelor Men. This has been an issue that I've been wrestling with for some time. How much do you reveal in an allegory to link the real story to the metaphor? I wonder if there are direct allusions to McCarthyism in Arthur Miller's The Crucible. I don't think so. The audience just knew the connection. For cultural reasons, obviously, fewer people are aware of the Bachelor Men. Does that mean I have to work harder to make connections for an audience, or shouldn't I write a play that challenges an audience? I've always believed that if I write down to an audience that I'm not respecting their intelligence. In the Forbidden Phoenix, I've made references to Terminal City (the nickname for Vancouver), Gold Mountain (the Chinese term for opportunity in Canada), and I even used the term "Bachelor Men." I suspect these are enough hints to the audience, and I think that the real Bachelor Men story can unfold visually to support the story.
As you probably can tell, this issue has me thinking pretty hard. The challenge of a workshop is that everyone will have a note. A playwright needs to be able to distinguish between the notes that help and those that don't contribute to the story that the playwright wants to tell.
Whew! That's enough for one day. I'm looking forward to seeing what tomorrow's discoveries are.