Re: What's up with Roger?

["L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>]

> >I agree that it seemed somewhat pompous and over blown, and the script 
>was dense and deadly, but also I thought the symbolic set up was excellent 
>and the brilliant ideas quite clear--which means it still has excellent 
>potential to be translated into other forms.
>
>I'd agree that the ideas behind it were very interesting but the execution, 
>particularly the dialogue, failed.

I didn't take much note of the dialog, except to realize in the second hour 
that it was repetitive and tiring and should have been cut in half.  I could 
hardly follow it on the broadcast, but reading it, I traveled from idea to 
idea rather than from word to word, so I consider it good work.  There were 
a couple of spots where something stuck out as forced or inappropriate, but 
otherwise the structure formed up pretty smoothly.

I admit that I'm not much of a drama fan, so I'm not up on standards for 
dialog in plays.  I thought it conveyed the ideas very well, and left me 
digging for some of the meaning--both typical of Pete's writing.  Was there 
something in particular that you disliked about it?


keets
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com