The idea of a rupture between acts occurs in a number of my plays.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
In the first place, it must be remembered that our point of view in examining the construction of a play will not always coincide with that which we occupy in thinking of its whole dramatic effect.
I'm not suggesting that the play is without fault; all of my plays are imperfect, I'm rather happy to say-it leaves me something to do.
I get the impression sometimes that a play arrives in a sequence of events that I have no control over.
I've seen plays that are, objectively, total messes that move me in ways that their tidier brethren do not. That's the romantic mystery of great theater. Translating this ineffability into printable prose is a challenge that can never be fully met.
A play is a passion.
My plays are ultimately about love, honor, duty, betrayal.
Play is a uniquely adaptive act, not subordinate to some other adaptive act, but with a special function of its own in human experience.
A good play puts the audience through a certain ordeal.
In reading plays, however, it should always be remembered that any play, however great, loses much when not seen in action.
I write my plays to create an excuse for full-tilt acting and performing.