We went to a play last night that was full of slapstick humor and pratfalls. I laughed a lot and with vigor. There was nothing really to think about, but the physical comedy was delightful. The play, "One Man, Two Govn'ors" should have been cut by a third, because if you really have nothing to say, 2 1/2 hours is too long. It could have been a silent presentation and I would have laughed as much. The production also had a lot of live music, but the lyrics were forgettable, and the music energetic but uninteresting. I often wonder, when I see a play or movie, why someone with authority didn't edit it down to manageable length. Come to think of it, I also feel that way about some books, like "The Goldfinch". Why didn't anyone stand up to the writer and say, "This would be so much better if it were shortened or condensed"?
Is more better? Often more gives me a generous amount of time to be hyper critical, because if it's going to be an endurance test, then I'm going to be asking what is the big deal? If I'm totally satisfied at intermission, and have to come back for another hour, something really amazing had better be happening, because I need my sleep. I got to bed at midnight last night, and now I'm tired and critical. Oh, dear.
There used at least to be book editors who shaped up unwieldy manuscripts, but now, the writers who make money seem to be curried to without any honest feedback. The editor is the smoother over, not the collaborator on a project, and it shows. It must be terrible to pander to talent without any mutual respect. Truth telling doesn't appear to be an option these days.
I may email the theater group and voice my concern, which I believe would be right speech, even if it falls on deaf ears. More is not necessarily more.
No comments:
Post a Comment