The second courtesan scene …
DL: that’s more relevant, does it activate things more?
M4: it’s a different story – she’s not asking for revenge –
W2: she’s asking for at least a different way – in the first one, she’s not directly attacking the people who harmed her, but in the second it seems like she actually is
DL: either way she’s a purer victim, isn’t she? does it expand her sympathy? does it make you want to do something?
M4: well it was flat … it was presentational – well, they both were, really – there’s not an engagement with an audience, but a presentation for them
DL: in this context that may be inevitable – since the director’s introducing them – but it seems like standard dramaturgy – a victim presenting their story
M5: the first scene is much more personal, so it’s easier to identify with her and care about her – I don’t know if I want to do anything, but it was more theatrical. the second scene seemed to bog down in the details –
DL: so the smarter a person is the less sympathy we have for them?
M5: it may be more real as far as the political situation, but less compelling theatrically – it seemed more imposed upon the character instead of coming out of one …
DL: where does that leave you with the trend of oading down plays with facts – or adapting them, or re-interpreting them with relevance –
W3: I just think the buzz-words in the second scene seemed to cheapen it – the first one worked more emotionally.
W4: it feels like preference to me – depending on the period in theatre, it’s been okat to be didactic or presentational – are we just at a point that prefers subtlety? is this only fashion?
M6: I get the movement from sympathy to empathy, but it seems like now we’re too clogged by symbols and information that makes it hard to be direct – it feels like it actually reaches us from a larger distance
DL: well, one way of threading that needle is documentary theatre …