"The Shark" is a moniker for a friend who first introduced me to the world of metaphysics, by showing me that human talent and ability extends far into the realm of metaphysics and the paranormal. Of course, he doesn't know that we sometimes call him that. He really is a decent and intelligent human being, but we can't shake that "sharky" - "have I got a deal for you" feeling that he seems to exude. Also, it is a moniker that I give him so that his identity is hidden at least from people who are reading this blog who don't know him.
Today I had a chance to meet him again. He had apparently written a play called "Vampire Monologues" ... I think as part of a workshop-competition where new playwrights get to showcase their short works. There was an event today where his work was read-acted out by members of a local theatre company. It was sort of a double bill event because one of the other competitors' works was also performed and the audience was given a chance to vote which play would end up in the finals, performed at the Esplanade.
"Vampire Monolgues" is a very funny, laugh-a-minute spoof about vampires and contains loads of risqué humour. It's nicely written and is rather entertaining. However, theatre-goers looking for depth or some really poignant literary undertone should leave their expectations at the door. Although The Shark commented that his inspiration for the play sprung from his "70 odd multi-personalities"... I think perhaps some of the inspiration for it came from his experience playing "Vampire The Masquerade: Live Action Theatre" with some local gamers who formed a registered association for this game in Singapore.
Watching it reminded me of a spoof movie about the porno industry that The Shark loaned me some years ago... The name of that movie is "Orgasmo" < IMDB Link > Watching it, you would get a pretty good idea of the tone the play took. Not surprisingly, "Vampire Monologues" was a crowd favourite and won over the other play that was also showcased at the event.
Now, there's a lot that can be said about "Vampire", and certainly, I think it can really be improved. But at one point my attention was drawn to a comment made by a lady who voted for the other play. She remarked that although she found that "Vampire" captured her attention more and that in short, she was more entertained by it. She voted for the other play because of its "literary merit" despite its length... (it was so long, and ended up going around in circles at one point, that I had started to shake my leg and look at my watch in the middle of the other play... not a good sign ) ALSO, she admitted that she didn't manage to grasp some of the Greek mythological and operatic references that the play often alluded to... at first, but sort of .... "got it" at the end.
Now, I have nothing against the other play, because I think it does have potential and for the sake of its writer, I will not mention its name in this blog entry. In fact, I would go so far to say that if not for the fact that the other play was WAY TOO LONG and lost my interest at the end, I would have voted for it over "Vampire". The audience obviously felt the same way, because "Vampire" is going on into the finals and will be performed at the Esplanade. :D
What really grates me is the fact that some would only approve of a play because of its "literary merit"???? I mean, what the HECK does that mean anyway? Is it really a merit for a play to make many many references to legends and obscure works (obscure at least for most people today) that do not have any relevance to audiences today? Does that make it a better play? Or does it make those who go to view it FEEL smarter?
Now, I am going to say rather pompously that I did not have a problem identifying the vague literary references to Greek legends and operas 'cos I do listen to opera, and thanks to my interest in metaphysics and history, I also happen to know the legends and the classics. However, I did not vote for the other play.
I suppose after years of disillusionment and pragmatism, I am of the opinion that an important criteria of any successful play, should be that people would WANT to put down their hard earned money to see it. That's right, think about it, if people didn't want to put down money to hear the plays of Shakespeare, it probably would not survive in popular consciousness today. I do not know if Shakespeare himself thought deeply about the multiple layers of meaning that literary critics, academics and students attribute to his works today. Sometimes, I think that the meaning we draw from a play, depends on the audience and that same meaning may not have originally been intended by the writer.
Okay, I might be a shallow person when it comes to entertainment... (At this point, I also remember that I once told a Straits Times journalist that probably the biggest function of news reporting was to provide "entertainment"... he was of course VERY offended... I was very cynical at that time dwelling on the whole notion of "bread and circuses" and analysing all those tabloids which sell so much better than the usual broadsheet news... hey, don't kid yourself, The New Paper is more widely viewed than the usual Straits Times and has a far greater reach into the minds of the Singaporean public, and the editors know it. ) ...However, I do know what catches the minds and hearts of people in these parts. And in these worrying times, I think people need laughter more than anything... And if some "shallow" play that lacks "literary merit" is able to provide an hour or so of laughter and thrills so that people are able to forget their worries for those short, golden moments then in my book at least... its A GOOD PLAY.
Today I had a chance to meet him again. He had apparently written a play called "Vampire Monologues" ... I think as part of a workshop-competition where new playwrights get to showcase their short works. There was an event today where his work was read-acted out by members of a local theatre company. It was sort of a double bill event because one of the other competitors' works was also performed and the audience was given a chance to vote which play would end up in the finals, performed at the Esplanade.
"Vampire Monolgues" is a very funny, laugh-a-minute spoof about vampires and contains loads of risqué humour. It's nicely written and is rather entertaining. However, theatre-goers looking for depth or some really poignant literary undertone should leave their expectations at the door. Although The Shark commented that his inspiration for the play sprung from his "70 odd multi-personalities"... I think perhaps some of the inspiration for it came from his experience playing "Vampire The Masquerade: Live Action Theatre" with some local gamers who formed a registered association for this game in Singapore.
Watching it reminded me of a spoof movie about the porno industry that The Shark loaned me some years ago... The name of that movie is "Orgasmo" < IMDB Link > Watching it, you would get a pretty good idea of the tone the play took. Not surprisingly, "Vampire Monologues" was a crowd favourite and won over the other play that was also showcased at the event.
Now, there's a lot that can be said about "Vampire", and certainly, I think it can really be improved. But at one point my attention was drawn to a comment made by a lady who voted for the other play. She remarked that although she found that "Vampire" captured her attention more and that in short, she was more entertained by it. She voted for the other play because of its "literary merit" despite its length... (it was so long, and ended up going around in circles at one point, that I had started to shake my leg and look at my watch in the middle of the other play... not a good sign ) ALSO, she admitted that she didn't manage to grasp some of the Greek mythological and operatic references that the play often alluded to... at first, but sort of .... "got it" at the end.
Now, I have nothing against the other play, because I think it does have potential and for the sake of its writer, I will not mention its name in this blog entry. In fact, I would go so far to say that if not for the fact that the other play was WAY TOO LONG and lost my interest at the end, I would have voted for it over "Vampire". The audience obviously felt the same way, because "Vampire" is going on into the finals and will be performed at the Esplanade. :D
What really grates me is the fact that some would only approve of a play because of its "literary merit"???? I mean, what the HECK does that mean anyway? Is it really a merit for a play to make many many references to legends and obscure works (obscure at least for most people today) that do not have any relevance to audiences today? Does that make it a better play? Or does it make those who go to view it FEEL smarter?
Now, I am going to say rather pompously that I did not have a problem identifying the vague literary references to Greek legends and operas 'cos I do listen to opera, and thanks to my interest in metaphysics and history, I also happen to know the legends and the classics. However, I did not vote for the other play.
I suppose after years of disillusionment and pragmatism, I am of the opinion that an important criteria of any successful play, should be that people would WANT to put down their hard earned money to see it. That's right, think about it, if people didn't want to put down money to hear the plays of Shakespeare, it probably would not survive in popular consciousness today. I do not know if Shakespeare himself thought deeply about the multiple layers of meaning that literary critics, academics and students attribute to his works today. Sometimes, I think that the meaning we draw from a play, depends on the audience and that same meaning may not have originally been intended by the writer.
Okay, I might be a shallow person when it comes to entertainment... (At this point, I also remember that I once told a Straits Times journalist that probably the biggest function of news reporting was to provide "entertainment"... he was of course VERY offended... I was very cynical at that time dwelling on the whole notion of "bread and circuses" and analysing all those tabloids which sell so much better than the usual broadsheet news... hey, don't kid yourself, The New Paper is more widely viewed than the usual Straits Times and has a far greater reach into the minds of the Singaporean public, and the editors know it. ) ...However, I do know what catches the minds and hearts of people in these parts. And in these worrying times, I think people need laughter more than anything... And if some "shallow" play that lacks "literary merit" is able to provide an hour or so of laughter and thrills so that people are able to forget their worries for those short, golden moments then in my book at least... its A GOOD PLAY.
Posts
