Talk:Playwright
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of Wikipedia's theatre coverage, and has come to the attention of WikiProject Theatre, an attempt to create a comprehensive and detailed resource on the art of theatre on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (just like any other article!), or visit WikiProject Theatre, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
I cleaned up the language in the section regarding playwrights vs. directors, but I'm not sure I agree with what is actually said there. I rather think that the director is very important in modern theatre, and that it tends to be the directors vision that gives a play its, well, theatricality. Does any agree?
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13268868,00.html
Classic example of misuse, typical of Sky News
 |
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007. |
Hey folks
I have a remark. in this article "drama" is opposed to "comedy or farce". I have the opinion this is not quite right. You have two big categories in drama: "tragedy" (eg Antigone, Oedipus, etc) and "comedy". This distinction was already made by Aristotle. Greetings.
Gero.
Gero is right. But who the fuck is Aristotle? Dont laugh bitch, I'm serious. Puneet Agarwal.
Contents |
[edit] Removed item
I removed the following as there is no separation between "drama" and "comedy". Drama is the literary form of theatre and therefore encompasses comedy.
"The term dramatist is sometimes synonymous with playwright, yet is reserved for an author of dramas as opposed to comedies or farces." *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Moving
Perhaps this article would be better as Playwriting? There is a good deal of information that could be included under that topic rather than simply under the term for a playwriting practitioner. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
After thinking about it, I withdraw the pervious statement. Really playwriting and playwright belong under Play. Anyone care to differ? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion from User talk:Bishonen
I started this discssion since there was no response from my earlier comment. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, since this place is such a hopping joint perhaps you, Bish, or someone else may have something to say on this. I've been considering merging playwright into play. To me it makes sense to make this move as there isn't anything in playwright (besides the etymology of the term playwright) that wouldn't be repeated in play or perhaps under another topic like History of theatre. I left a note about this on the talk page of playwright but I haven't recieved a response. Anyone have a sage opinion on this? Thanks! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- I would favor leaving them separate, because there is content that should be on playwright that isn't. When someone does have the long view necessary to add that information, the two would need to be split again. What I'm thinking of is, in fact, what I cannot do, quite. I can see what needs to be said, but, if I said it, it would be fuzzy. Some things that need to be said: playwright as priest (Greece, where tragedy and satyr are both part of religious ceremonies and where the subject matter was the equivalent of what for us would be a Bible movie, as these were their holy texts; then to the fearful medieval passion play, where the playwright is anonymous as an act of devotion and humility; playwright as irresponsible intruder upon holy work in the reactions to the emergence of the professional playwright in England in the Elizabethan era); playwright as profession (emergence from actors needing scripts in the Elizabethan era, when playwrights were expected to be directors; development of the "dramatic poet" and Dryden's idea of a playwright who is an epic poet; producer playwright in the 18th c. (see Augustan drama and spectacle), where the producer writes or hires whatever trash will put butts in the seats; playwright as professional reformer at the end of the 19th c. and the muckraking/naturalist/realist playwrights who see themselves as priests again, but this time as saviors of their nations and prophets denouncing hypocrisy; playwright as commercial profession in the 20th c., where the playwright is provocative as needed to get a payday); playwright as a specialized profession (divorced from the "poet" and the novelist and the screenwriter); playwriting as co-opted by film. Again: I can offer this outline and suggest that each roman numeral in it needs subheads, but I can't do it and be responsible. Geogre 16:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, damn, and Roman playwrights, who follow Menander and other late Hellenistic writers, who might represent the first non-priestly/non-religious play writing, as they allow themselves to endlessly reproduce the Greek tragedies and to move a bit away from religious celebration in their own plays. Geogre 16:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Dam the damn: By "late Hellenistic writers" I don't just mean Menander, but all those playwrights who took their cue from Theophrastus and developed "character" comedies. Some of those comedies are kind of dramatic (but they still couldn't be too dramatic, because Tragedy was still holy-only), but it sets the place for the Roman authors to write without the Olympiad and festival of Dionysus. Geogre 16:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I am in awe of your knowledge! Wow! I'll copy this discussion to playwright for further reference. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nothing since January?
Unbelievable. There's so much to be done, especially in the area of merging. Would you believe the following? Well-Made Play and Well-made play! The subject of theatre is so wide ranging; writing, acting, directing, producing, and the related lighting, costumes, sets, props, and the same in each of the performing industries; theatre, film, and TV (and radio belongs somewhere) that I truly believe that there should be just a few groupings, and then an entire list of "also see" and "external links" sections common to, and duplicated in, all of the groupings. Sure, each page can have some introductory and organizational material, but the detail and original thoughts are already in the "see also"s and "external links". Let's not look for much original thinking in the descriptive introductions, they all seem to be wearing the "needs references etc." stubs and will continue to do so. I also question the quality of many creative contributions which mostly need to be edited. On the other hand, the dryness of the traditional approach of an encyclopedia does not lend itself well to these subjects. Science, mathematics, yes, but not the arts, which do better in the informal article form. Just my opinion, but others jump in, please. JohnClarknew 03:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
