Charlie Hearn

Tracey Brent-Chessum

Theatre History II

February 25, 2024

Midterm Dialogue Between Playwrights

Part One:

Setting: A fancy “European” boardroom or debate hall.

Time: Before WWI

At the head of the table seats Herik Ibsen and to his left is Anton

Chekov and August Strindberg. To his right is Oscar Wilde and George

Bernard Shaw (GB Shaw).

IBSEN: Thank you friends, for coming to the Modern Theatre Council.

Now as the current patriarch to our movement of theatre in realism-

Chekov: *scoffs* right.

STRINDBERG: I’d hardly say your dip into realism warrants you being a

“Father of Modern Realism”. You still create performances for the

audience to watch and reflect upon, Chekov and I we deal with the real

conversation of people.

GB SHAW: Well, I mean it’s just about how you define and experience

realism in theatre. Me personally, I think I show- what did you call

it, real conversation, but I still show that action and conversation

in my shows.

WILDE: I agree. My plays cannot achieve what you’re talking about Shaw

because our worlds and audiences are so different. The public I write

for does not relate to birds being cut in half on stage or people

coming back on stage after trying to kill themselves. I think blending

reality with a little bit of humor shows the human experience. Real,

confusing, and a little funny.

IBSEN: Let’s pull it back in fellas. But you make a wonderful point

Wilde. I was writing plays for an audience who had never seen such

‘realness’ on stage before and actors who were more used to having

trains on stage than they were with real conversation.

On top of that, I was one of the first to even attempt to write in

this way and tackle social issues. I think theatre can be used as a

vehicle to look inward and help benefit society

ALL: murmurs of agreement and recognition

IBSEN: So now let’s get into the real reason why we are here. We have

all written and benefitted from our work and had others benefit from

our plays as well. Let’s set a standard for Realism moving forward so

it can keep progressing uninterrupted, baring of course some great

disturbance or God forbid, war happens.

Beat

All look at the audience and then back to the group.

CHEKOV: Well like Strindberg was saying, I think I have a brand of

Realism even too real for this council... Naturalism (he makes jazz

hands but in a very unexciting and bleak way, more akin to just having

his hands out to wave once and come back in). My Naturalism goes even

a step further into Realism. There is still too much separating the
audience from the world with Realism, but with Naturalism they can see

how sporadic and boring life can be. Yes, I do not always show the

extreme action of the world in each scene, but how often does that

happen? A social issue is still important in conversation just like

how it is in action.

GB SHAW: And I appreciate you going sooo deep into Realism, but how

accessible is that for audiences? In my case, I think society and the

world is too complex for it to be seen and explained in just

conversations and the like. I need to show that complexity in the

intricacies of my character relationships and climaxes of the story.

Social issues are so very important yes, but they are not as simple as

a yes or no. There are so many facets and layers to everything and

that should be fully explored to do justice to each issue.

IBSEN: I can respect that. I can acknowledge even my own blind sights

to have my works have been perceived at this point. (at this point,

STRINDBERG takes an apple in cage lunchbox out from under the table,

takes out the apple, chops it in half and begins to eat the apple) I

really do find it- I'm sorry, Strindberg, may we help you.

STRINDBERG: Well, no, but I guess since the spotlight is on me, I can

share my two cents... (Beat) well, uh I think it is also important to

show the realness and rawness of reality and society. People have dark

intentions and motives and so do their actions. I would not want to

show a murder offstage because frankly murder is real and the only way

to get that through our minds is to see it. It helps show to horrors

of society to see what needs to be fixed. Just some food for thought

(finishes apple slice).

WILDE: I guess my thought is that, all that has become a little

overwhelming for audiences and that like with the movement of

Romanticism, audiences once again want to have fun in the theatre. My

audiences are still faced with social issues but, there is also great

humor and silliness to cut the tension. Sure, it may be a little less

‘real’, but I think that shows how life can sometimes be so random and

silly too.

IBSEN: Great conversation gentlemen. I think it is more an injustice

to try and take one of our approaches and set it as the precedent

moving forward. Maybe it is best to continue to see what the future

leaders in our profession will accomplish. (huffs and puffs from

Chekov and maybe others) ...but like we have done for each other these
future pioneers for theatre can continue to look to the past and draw

from our works and the works of our colleagues. With us influencing

them, they can continue to serve society and create relevant theatre

to what the world needs. Yes, there was a time when the rawness of

life was in the forefront and action was shown through words. And then

we changed to show the humor and complexities of life, but all of this

could not have been accomplished without the combined works of each

other and the needs of what society called for. So, let’s let the

future bring what is must and let the future artist bring a new wave

of theatrical innovation.

The Playwrights all freeze and William Shakespeare walks on stage

Shakespeare: And the Future did bring something new...

Shakespeare begins pantomiming war and violence as sounds of war play.

There is a final tableau of him holding a skull as the lights fade.

End of Part One.

 Part Two:

Setting: The same “European” boardroom but it looks funky, like it has

been shifted through a funhouse mirror, been broken down, and rebuilt.

Time: After WWI

There is no real “head of the table” instead, there are various seats

around tables, counters, and desks which looks reminiscent of an Alice

in Wonderland Tea Party.

The playwrights are in the middle of a debate over a play being

written.

ARTUAD: ...a flower blooms and then wilts as a beautiful woman gets

near to pluck it up.

IONESCO: I like it... but maybe instead of the flower wilting, it

could morph into a dandelion. So as the woman comes to pick it up, it

changes into what humanity has created within society, weeds.

BRECHT: Well maybe instead of a dandelion it could be Japanese

knotweed, so it is not too obvious to audiences, and we can also

separate them from the action.

ARTUAD: How about the flower changes to a scorpion. Oh, and then the

scorpion can attack and eat the woman right as her lover comes into

the scene and steps on the scorpion. Then a trumpeter can come out and

play a victory song for the lover who is now crying over the loss of

his lady.

It shows the irony of society trying to reward us and put band aids

over the horrors and PTSD of war and tragedy.

THE FUTURIST: I like it but maybe add more war and robots? Just a

thought.

THE DADIST: I get all of the reasoning and metaphor behind that, but

isn’t that in its essence what propelled us into war and tragedy in

the first place? Why not instead have the flower sprout arms and legs

and a head and fall in love with the woman. So, when the man walks in,

he finds that his lover has fallen in love with the flower and war
itself. He can fall in love with a Clown maybe. I’m not sure yet on

that part but I think that would bring it in the right direction.

BRECHT: I still think we need to distance the story from ourselves

more. Maybe instead of having the actors say their lines, they can be

dubbed from somewhere offstage, so the audience is not relying on

their emotions to interpret the story. We could even play with masks

or something similar, to keep the base of the story intact.

I think it is just so important for our audiences to experience the

play for what it is and not place too much of themselves upon it. And

I still think the having it set in Japan can help with that too.

Something as common as a dandelion or a clown reminds our audiences

too much of their home. I doubt any of our audience members know too

much of the intricacies of Japan so it would be a great backdrop to

place the play upon, a distant world almost.

THE FUTURIST: I still think you are all in the way left field of this

one. We need to honor things in our play that really matter to the

world. We can have the flower actually be a fake and have it grow in

size to be an automaton that begins to rebuild the city. The woman,

who does not understand the glory of this new technology will try and
destroy the flower machine, but it is no use as the thorny claws of

the machine snatch her away!!

A play like that will last longer since it will grow with the

technology with us, while also dismantling the current establishment

of what art is!

IONESCO: Well maybe... but let’s focus on how absurd life really is.

Have the flower change its form into the manifestation of the effects

society. We can accomplish so much with Absurdist theatre by placing a

distorted mirror in the world. An exact mirror image would not show

the real effects of society on itself, but if we highlight certain

aspects of society by aspects in our play a little weird, we can show

the extremities of society.

Suddenly a flower appears in the middle of the room. The group is

silent.

Lights up on the audience as a woman from the audience goes up to

pluck the flower, but as she does the lights in the theatre go out.

When the lights come back on, she is gone, and the playwrights erupt

in confusion and arguments.

A Chicken walks across the stage holding a flower in its mouth, no one

seems to notice.

End of Part Two.