Interview With Alan David
Perkins
Interviewed by Jenna Glatzer
Alan
has been playwriting for a decade. In that time, he has completed 17
full-length plays, received honors from 17 national playwright competitions, and
had his work produced at theatres all over the United States.
Why playwriting?
It's the medium in which I think. Right now in my life, I think of stories and issues in these nice, self-contained little packages that can be
performed on stage. I like the limitations of stage. In addition, one of the things I like about stage is the intensity - you're drawn in immediately
because it's all happening in front of you, live, right there. It's very exhilarating! We can also go into the control issue, in which playwriting
is one of the only writing mediums in which the writer has some control (next to writing novels).
How do you get your work "out there" as a playwright? Do you have to
be published by Samuel French or other big companies to be produced?
It's a lot of leg work. A LOT of leg work. A day doesn't go by in which I don't do some leg work. Every, single day. I
dare say that there isn't a theatre company in the country that hasn't either had one of my scripts go
across their desk or have been mailed or E-mailed. I also have a stack of rejection letters two inches thick. I can honestly say that I don't stand a
chance in hell at this point of getting a professional production due to the
lack of an agent (who, as well, have all had my name across their desks many times now). You have to find the companies who will cooperate. I do tons
of research on theatre companies through the Internet, and I can see if they're a company who is receptive to doing new work or not. Example, I'm
not going to solicit to a company who does strictly Shakespearean plays. A
few clicks can tell a lot. At that point I'll send them a letter or an E-mail explaining the play, how it's been produced around and well received.
I also hit upon the things I believe most theater companies want to know: It's made money and it's easy to produce. (I feel that ease of production is
crucial. I've read many a new play that have unrealistic requirements for companies with tiny budgets.) But, in reference to being published; there
is a certain credibility you get once published. The play doesn't necessarily have to even be good, but if it's published, it's got juice.
There are other ways to get juice, though. The number one way is to win competitions. I believe firmly in competitions because it's really the only
way a new play will even be read. The number two way is amateur
productions, even if it's your own. But if you can't offer the juice, nobody will even look at the play.
How are you paid? Do you get flat fees or royalties?
It depends. I usually try to figure out a nice percentage. I have a formula: take the capacity of the house, split it in half, multiply it by
the ticket price and figure 5% of that. 5% is pretty fair - I think the Dramatists Guild contract usually asks for more. Depending on other things
(like if they'll put me up if I go see the show) I'll give a lower figure.
Tell us about the experience of watching a cast of characters
performing your "vision."
The very first time I ever saw a play of mine performed, I kept thinking "did I write that?" There were layers and overtones that I never remembered
putting in, but since I was pretty immersed in the character, these things
came out (so much for skimping on character - see question 5). Ordinarily, I try to keep some form of relationship with the director of any of my plays,
first because I just enjoy being involved, and second to be sure there is a full understanding of what I meant. I'm always willing to entertain a new
angle, as long as it works, though so far I've never been disappointed -
except once. There was ONE production where the director refused to communicate with me. Soon I was asked to make script changes that made no
sense. When I saw the production I was HORRIFIED at what had been done. The entire point was lost in a director's obvious inability to understand
the play. As a result, I rewrote the ending so that would never happen again.
I get a kick out of actors asking me about the characters. I'm always asked who they're based on, and if they're based on me. According to Neil Simon,
they're all based on me!
You say you've been accused of "horseracing" the plot and skimping on
character. Why do you feel that plot is more important in a play?
They're both important, of course. But keep in mind that during the course of a play, something happens. During a play something happens. There is
action (albeit not necessarily physical). You go from point A to point B.
There is conflict and stakes. Plus, from a marketing standpoint - and I'm talking about just getting people to want to SEE the play - there should be
a hook of sorts to help them decide if they want to see it or not. As an
example, I'll present a one-sentence summary of one of my plays with two different slants:
"It's a play about a man's self-worth versus a reality of priorities that have lost their perspective."
"It's a play about a check-your-brain-at-the-door department in an unimportant factory who gets in trouble for taking pride in their work and
increasing their output."
They both describe the same play. Which one would you have a greater tendency to want to see?
I admit that I don't put Miller-esque slants on my characters. My plays tend to lean toward the absurd, and as a result the characters are
deliberately drawn with a bit of a broad brushstroke. In addition, I enjoy
the collaboration in putting a play together, and I like to see what an actor and director can do without me having to dictate too much to them.
Frequently I'm pleasantly surprised.
On the other hand, I've seen and read plays where each character sounds exactly like the other. I've seen and read plays that were all about
character development and had literally no plot whatsoever. I've seen and read plays that had a strong plot but none of the characters changed in any
way. There's got to be some sort of balance. But, overall, I feel that a playwright is a storyteller.
Your play "Nobody Knows I'm A Dog" has gotten a lot of attention. Can
you give us a brief synopsis and discuss the challenge of writing a play that centers around the Internet (therefore, limiting the action)?
"Nobody Knows I'm a Dog" is about six people who can't connect, so they try to overcompensate by creating personas on the
Internet to become the person
they wish they were. Unfortunately, it doesn't work. Each character basically has the same motivation: They're lonely, so they pretend to <fill
in the blank> so people will talk to them.
My biggest fear, of course, is that the play would be static and uninteresting. It's been accused many, many times of being static, but
never by someone who's actually seen the play. I mean, Gurney's "Love
Letters" was static, but nobody complained. Just because they don't interact doesn't mean there is no action.
I felt that the most important thing in writing this ways was BREVITY. It's a concept that can grow old fast, so give the audience just what they need
and move on. Don't dwell.
In addition, I really tried to capture the flavor of the Internet. Of course, these are fantasy conversations, and nothing this elaborate would
EVER happen on the Internet. (For one production, I printed out about 12
pages of conversations on a singles IRC channel. After reading about 4 or 5 pages, one of the actors asks me "Do they ever say ANYTHING?") I did, however, stand by the understanding that everything on the Internet is
premeditated/nothing is spontaneous. Everyone has plenty of time to say exactly what they want to say. As a result, they always say too much or too
little. It's not conversational. As a matter of fact, there's almost a broken rhythm to the play. At it's first presentation we found that if the
actors "typed" their lines instead of just saying them, the play jumped to
life! It was a wonderful moment!
While the Internet has obviously given you some great subject matter,
do you fear that the trend of more and more isolated activity in America will mean that fewer and fewer people will actually leave their houses and go
to theatres to see plays?
Hey, video didn't kill the movie industry. I've never known anyone to hole up forever and surf the Net. Granted, they might do it for a long time, but
eventually the need for human contact overwhelms them and they go out into the real world. At least I hope so.
How important is it for a playwright to study the "masters" and read
books about structure, dialogue, etc?
It can never hurt. I firmly believe that one can become an "artistic technician" merely by learning the rules. Once you learn to break those
rules, you can create Art. But you have to really know those rules. Look
at some of the extremes: Picasso, John Cage, Andy Warhol. They knew exactly what they were doing, and then they pushed their respective envelopes
(please don't think that I put myself on the level of Picasso, John Cage or Andy Warhol by any means!).
In addition, as a playwright, I feel that reading and seeing plays is crucial. You can't write for a medium you don't know. I enjoy reading
books about playwriting. They keep me focused. Eventually, I read the same
things over and over, but it's good to hear someone else's bend on things.
You have won several national playwriting competitions. Does this
boost your career as a playwright?
Surely. See aforementioned "juice" references. Again, competitions are sometimes the only chance a new writer has of being read. I've received
countless scripts back from theatre companies, agents and producers
completely unread. Add the words "award-winning" to the cover letter and they're a little more prone to take a second look. On the other hand,
you're still required to be your own publicist, and because of that nobody
still would see even the cover letter before it's shipped back to you with a form letter.
Screenwriters often complain that their visions are not preserved
on-screen because everyone from the producers and directors to the actors and cinematographers feel the need to make changes and rewrite the script. Do
you notice that playwrights' words are more respected in this manner?
I wouldn't say respected, but they definitely have more control. I'm not 100% sure why we've escaped this one, but I'm not going to rock the boat!
Do you write plays with budget constrictions in mind?
Always. I believe that playwrights should be responsible. If a play is too hard to produce, it stands a greater chance of never seeing a stage. I
produce community theater, and as a producer, I look at all of the restrictions and pitfalls before I decide on a play to do.
Keep in mind that my concept of being a responsible playwright and someone else's will vary significantly. In addition, I really have no idea if by
being responsible (by my standards) helps or not. I can only assume.
You maintain a day job. Would you ever consider making the leap to
writing full-time?
Instantly. In a heart beat. I'd never look back.
Do you see a difference in the way your plays are performed in
different parts of the country?
Not really, but I find that productions outside of New York normally have better facilities.
Anything else you'd like to add for aspiring playwrights?
Write. Rewrite. Don't expect your first play to go up on Broadway right away. A common E-mail I get from time to time is "I just finished my first
play. What should I do?" My answer is to write your second play. Then
write your third play. Then go back to your first play and rewrite it. Playwriting, like any other art form, takes practice. Also, it's okay to
write crap once in a while.
Visit Alan's website by clicking
here.
