top of page
  • Oct 18, 2024
  • 8 min read

Updated: Oct 30, 2024

Growing up as an actor, I always believed actors were born, not made. Certainly, one can learn techniques of speaking and movement, period styles, etc. But I’ve never seen a mediocre actor become great. Writers are another thing altogether. There may be folks born with the gift of gab or a preternatural understanding of the English language, but they do not appear from the ether ready-made writers. Writers need training, feedback, honing, workshopping. They must be taught.


I’ve been blessed in my life with teachers who made me the writer I am now. What am I? A playwright first and foremost, a poet, and a sometime writer of nonfiction with a focus on criticism and personal essays. Each of the following people contributed to these sometimes-disparate elements, although there is a connection between drama and poetry that is surprising to some folks, though not to me. Both forms seem to be a kind of calling out to the gods for help in understanding the world. One just goes about it in a slightly different way.


I was eleven when I wrote my first blackout sketches and monologues and fourteen when I wrote my first short play, seventeen for the first full-length. Those early works would not have been possible without the support of two teachers who were not my playwriting teachers, but their guidance and provisions were essential to my earliest days of dramatic writing.

Elizabeth, awarding me the 2001 Thespis Award

Elizabeth Adkisson was the acting teacher at the Alabama School of Fine Arts (ASFA). In my ninth-grade year, we began hosting a student-run coffee-house night in the black box studio theatre and this was the first time I did readings and productions of my plays. Most, I’m sure, I would balk at if I watched them today, though they do exist on rotting video tape. One night, I asked Elizabeth to listen in on the first play which made me proud—a twenty scene romp entitled Hopeless Romantics. It was based on a list of questions I had about women and featured two guys at a bar asking them and attempting to answer in curious, non-adult ways.


We had to have a chaperone on sight for the coffee house, so she stayed behind the homemade bleachers and listened as I and another actor sped through the piece, dodging thrown shoes from the audience because, even then, I had no filter, and I wrote with complete abandon in terms of content. Afterwards, I asked her opinion. I was all of fifteen. Of course, as my acting teacher, she wanted to criticize my diction, but something struck her obviously and she brought to my attention a regional playwriting award for which I could submit the piece.


Southern PlayWorks was the only company in Birmingham devoted to new works. At the time, they had the responsibility for giving out the Ruby Lloyd Apsey Award. One of its prior winners (for the hilarious Holmes & Watson) was Lee Eric Shackleford, the Playwright-in-Residence at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. He responded to the facile, stichomythic dialogue (Seinfeld-like, I’m sure) and awarded me first prize. The prize included, I think, some cash, a framed award with my middle initial printed wrong, and a reading supervised by a local director and actors.


The reading itself was a bust. Somehow the madcap romp my friend and I had performed in the studio theatre fell flat in the ASFA Performance Hall, where the ceremony was held. The director and I did not get along—she was one of many who was concerned at the immaturity of characters allegedly in their twenties and thirties—and the actors must have been on Xanax or something that afternoon. Nevertheless, both Adkisson and Shackleford kept track of my development.


The next year, Elizabeth agreed for a friend of mine to direct two of my new one-acts for his senior project. The plays were a cyclical drama, A Plumber’s Story, and a paper-thin romantic comedy, More Than Words. On Elizabeth and the director’s suggestion, I was banned from rehearsals so he could learn his directorial craft. While he left A Plumber’s Story alone, to my great surprise, More Than Words was chopped up, re-written, and mangled to suit popular taste. But, based on the strength of A Plumber’s Story, Elizabeth began to take me seriously as a writer. She submitted a never-produced one-act of mine, Call Waiting, to the Alabama Shakespeare Festival’s Young Southern Writers’ Project and asked me to collaborate on a full-length adaptation as my senior project.

Part of "Shack"'s head awarding me the 1999 Ruby Lloyd Apsey Award

Shackleford had other ideas in mind. Money for Southern PlayWorks was going dry, but it just happened to be that he had (I hope) a promising playwright in his midst, so he decided to produce and direct a night of one-act plays written by student playwrights. The evening was called Four Blinks of the Eye. It seemed to me “Shack,” as I called him, was going through a wistful spell remembering his youth as, around this time, he produced one of his most mature plays, May Flies Fast. So, the “four blinks” were four snapshots of life as seen from young people. The first half of the evening consisted of Hopeless Romantics and a much re-written version of More Than Words that was more of a dramedy that lost a lot of its initial humor. The show was, overall, well-attended and we young playwrights were given our first royalty checks. We felt and were treated like professionals. That’s what “Shack” did for me—along with including a more mature one-act of mine, Above the Mountains, in his first night of ten-minute plays he produced at UAB some three years later.


Back to ASFA, Elizabeth had picked out a classic Russian comedy, Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin’s The Minor as our mainstage show my senior year, but the script was hopelessly outdated and in a translation that did not help matters one bit. Our agreement is she would find a suitable way to adapt it for contemporary audiences and I would write the dialogue and stage directions. The result was Discordia, a futuristic comedy. The play was (and is) terrible, but it was a legitimate, two-act play. I also found my love for adaptation which I’ve since treated as a collaboration between a living and a deceased writer. Walking in another writer’s shoes to see why they did this or chose that was a remarkable experience and I’ve continued the work in adaptations and translations of plays by Chikamatsu Monzaemon, Henrik Ibsen, O. Henry, Edgar Allan Poe, and George Washington Parke Custis.


Then, “Shack” and Liz sent me off to college for a professional playwriting education. At Bennington, I was grounded academically by the Pulitzer Prize-nominated fiction writer and playwright Gladden Schrock, a seven-foot-tall bear of a man whose output consisted of many counterculture works from the late ‘60s and early ‘70s. His The Green Lute, in its premiere at the Long Wharf Theatre (where he was a founding member along with his Yale buddies Jon Jory and Stacy Keach), starred a young James Cromwell and a (believe it or not) young Abe Vigoda, though I’m sure he still looked old even in 1965. His plays Madam PopovGlutt, and Taps railed against the “me” generation following the peace movement of the 1960s. Schrock’s crowning achievement was Letters from Alf, a 1973 novel that has smatterings of The Catcher in the RyeMan’s Fate, and Portnoy’s Complaint, but with half the solipsism and thrice the intelligence.


Gladden, me, and my Uncle Harlan at graduation

Schrock had been taught by John Gassner at Yale, Gassner being the great anthologizer of American drama at the time American drama was worth anthologizing. Gassner was taught by George Pierce Baker, the first person to teach playwriting in an academic setting. He had taken his ideas to Harvard, where he was rejected, and eventually landed at Yale, which is still the university most associated with producing some of the best theatrical artists of the day. While Schrock’s education was very traditional, his plays were rather avant-garde, perhaps influenced by Beckett to a fault. But where Beckett was minimalist in language, Schrock’s plays were chock full of words only Shakespearean-level actors could hope to render. As a wordsmith, he was a maximalist to the nth degree and his plays should be more well known because Glutt, in particular, describes this miserable day and age as much as it did in its own time.


David and me in New York, New York

On the other hand, I interned two years with David Henry Hwang, the Tony and Obie Award-winning playwright of FOBM. ButterflyGolden Child, and other classics of Asian-American theatre. He was taught by Sam Shepard and Maria Irene Fornés (the latter often considered one of the best playwriting teachers the country ever had). So, David’s education was experimental in nature while his plays strike a chord between traditional comedy/drama and moments of lilting, poetic beauty (most often on display in his work for opera). I felt, with the two, I had two genetic linkages of playwriting from which to drawn on. To have a link to the writer of the seminal Dramatic Technique and to the Pulitzer Prize-winning Shepard was not too shabby.


Schrock did just about everything to get me to drop his course. He sent me to the library where there was one copy of our textbook which we all had to share, and he referred to the work I brought to school as having not one single interesting character. He was tough, but fair. It took two years until he said one day, “You’ve walked in the room a different person” and we became fast friends. For years after Bennington, he would read my work and comment through e-mail. David showed me the ins and outs of professional New York theatre, exposing me to Broadway and Off-Broadway work and allowing me to tag along to business meetings, introducing me to other writers I loved, and landing me a gig as a Production Assistant on a James Lapine play in the winter of 2003.


Bach, sadly no longer with us

Also at Bennington, I studied screenwriting with the producer/biographer Steven Bach, whose book Final Cut, about the making of Michael Cimino’s Heaven’s Gate (which he was personally involved in) is a standard tome for cinephiles. Bach believed I was a better screenwriter than playwright, though I never remember him seeing any of my plays. Nevertheless, his friendship and our mutual adoration of Stephen Sondheim made us bosom buddies. Just like with Schrock and Hwang’s works, I’m proud to have an inscribed, signed copy of Final Cut near my mantle.


I never studied poetry at all. I submitted material to try and gain acceptance into courses at Bennington but was always turned down. Nevertheless, I took it back up a few years after college and poetry provides me a break when I’m stuck on a play and a place for me to explore ideas that are not inherently theatrical. Being self-taught, my poems may not strike you as particularly good, but one did win a prize, so at least I have that.


Poirier's other work includes MODERN RANCH LIVING and the screenplay for SMART PEOPLE

As far as non-fiction, this was the ass-kicker. As far as forming words, I had Wayne Hoffman-Ogier, an instructor at Bennington who helped me reign in my excesses on essays. Through reading gorgeous prose such as Thomas Mann’s Death in Venice, I learned a lot from his wisdom and guidance. He struck me as a craftsman extraordinaire and I soaked up all I could. While I have never written much fiction, I also learned a lot from two novelists, Rebecca T. Godwin (Keeper of the House) and Mark Jude Poirier (Goats). Godwin taught on a class on the works and writing lives of Welty, Woolf, and O’Connor which was my favorite class second only to A Capella Choir and Poirier took me on in a course reading Moliére and writing flash fiction. My fiction was never good, but I can’t help thinking the assistance of these three teachers helped me hone the prose I write today—weekly, for you.


Take a moment and remember your teachers—what they did for you, what they didn’t do for you. One must always take one’s advice with a grain of salt, but if you know how to sift through what’s right and wrong, you can learn a lot from someone whose been produced or published.

Not all holidays are created equally, but there is a ubiquity about them. It is necessary, for example, to have a bright spot in the bleak midwinter and some sort of festival atmosphere as Spring dawns, so for most folks in the Western World, Christmas and Easter serve these needs, but there are equivalent holy days for different religions as well. While no one can deny the appeal of Christmas, Easter has always been my favorite. No matter where I’ve lived, the weather has always been gorgeous and it has special religious significance to me as well.


I celebrate holidays usually with a piece of art. For Easter, I might watch a documentary or film about Christ; for Christmas, we have scores of films, television specials, and music to fill our eyes, ears, and hearts. But I have traditions of my own for other holidays as well. On Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, I inevitably listen to James Taylor’s “Shed a Little Light,” often posting it on social media. This year, you’ve already seen my appreciation of the musical 1776 on Independence Day. I am a flag collector, so while I don’t have any traditions for it, Flag Day is even kind of special.


We are, of course, coming up on Halloween and I’ve never seen so much pre-decoration. There is apparently a new phenomenon called “Augtober,” where people anxious for Fall start Halloween decoration in the month with no legitimate holidays. Prior to that however, we have what has become the most controversial federal holiday: Columbus Day.

A desecrated statue of Columbus.

In this age of historical purgation, rabid ideology, and fruitless attempts to make the past palatable, we have seen statues of Columbus thrown into the sea and the typical image of the man desecrated and ridiculed. Certainly, looking over his biography, one can see why people would choose to try and throw the man off their backs (a rather different matter than the lunacy that drove some to desecrate statues of Lincoln a few years ago). Obsessively ideologically possessed academics want the whole notion of a day celebrating the “discovery” of the New World jettisoned and replaced with Indigenous Peoples’ Day, which is celebrated on the same day. More moderate and, therefore, most often, academically-rigorous ones see a complicated man of his own time who cannot be judged any differently than most of the people of his time—along the lines of Richard Wagner, Thomas Jefferson, and a few other historical figures I’ve discussed on the blog.


So, do I have any Columbus Day traditions? Well, yes, oddly enough. While no world was ever exactly “discovered” and Columbus was late to the party in terms of Leif Erikson, his stamp on the continents on this side of the world can be seen everywhere. He brought the laws, the (often) savage justice, and the imperialism of the Old World here, marks of which can still be seen today (this, Lief never did). He made contact (and did several other awful things) with our Indigenous populations, and his name is stamped into the names of many cities, including our capital. Why we are not the United States of Columbia I’ve never figured out. Score one for Vespucci. Regardless, one can’t deny Columbus made a mark in addition to his crimes and excesses.

In 1992, my friend David Henry Hwang, whose 2007 Obie Award-winner Yellow Face is currently having its Broadway premiere, had his grand opera debut as the librettist of Philip Glass’ The Voyage. The opera was commissioned by the Metropolitan Opera for the 500th anniversary of Columbus’ “discovery.” Glass and Hwang, true to both their styles, chose to write an opera more generally about discovery than about Columbus himself, although he does play a role in it. Having a rather wild production design in what seems from contemporaneous reviews as a neon spectacular, The Voyage largely sank despite a beautifully written libretto and some rare instances of humor from Glass. It was not until the work was revived in the twenty-first century when a recording was made, and I typically listen to it on Columbus Day. The following excerpt from Glass’ liner notes and a snippet of Hwang’s libretto gives you some idea of why the concept of what Columbus did, rather than the man he was, is a reason to celebrate:


"Now, Christopher Columbus was a dynamic, fascinating man. In most ways he was a man of his time—no better and probably no worse. He was remarkable for the force and dedication that he brought to his dreams. And this, above all, is what sets him apart and makes him compelling for us today—a half a millennium later."-Philip Glass

"From the first amoeba

Who fought to break free of itself

To Ulysses, to Ibn Battuta, to Marco Polo

To Einstein, and beyond

All that we seek to know

Is to know ourselves

To reduce the darkness

By some small degree

To light a candle, jump a stream

That the sum of human ignorance

Might dwindle just a bit

And the deeds done in darkness

May wither one day perhaps even

Expire

And if our human voyages

Are riddled sometimes with horrors

With pride, with vanity

With the mother's milk of cruelty...

Yet finally human evil

Does not deny the good

Of knowledge

Of light

Of revelation

Of the hope that lo one day

Exploration will make obsolete

Even the sins of the explorer"

-Epilogue, The Voyage (text by David Henry Hwang)

In the end, I choose to think of the day as commemorating the spirit of discovery which I hope humans never give up on. While some of the things Columbus did are squalid and barbaric compared to today’s standards, without him, and the thousand other horrors since, we wouldn’t have the experiment called America. We inherit on our backs a lot of blood, it’s true, but we must move forward now—discovering more. We can’t do it as the divided nation we are. Perhaps something will bring us back together and the petty bickering over what happened in yesteryear will pale in comparison to what could be the glories of our future.

Updated: Oct 6, 2024

*½ out of ****


At this point, what on earth can you say about Ryan Murphy? His output includes some of the worst television I’ve ever seen (Glee), some interesting failures (Scream Queens), and some remarkable work as well (Nip/Tuck, The Normal Heart, and the first season of American Crime Story). All, excepting The Normal Heart (a beautiful, gripping adaptation of Larry Kramer’s landmark play), are salacious, transgressive, exploitative, and vulgar—sometimes all at once.

With Dahmer-Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story, he and co-creator Ian Brennan fashioned something unique: a factual, well-made miniseries that I wouldn’t ever want to watch again and which I think should not have been made. At this point, one must wonder why Murphy is attracted to these subject matters. He feeds a sick public sick material that ends up not revealing anything about human nature, but instead trots out grotesquerie and the freaks we’ve come to (for some reason) adore in the age of True Crime podcasts, docuseries, and YouTube videos.


With the second installment of Monster (Murphy pioneered the modern anthology series with American Horror Story), he has turned to Lyle and Erik Menendez, the brothers who are in prison without the possibility of parole for murdering their parents in cold blood in the late 1980s. I have watched the entire thing and I cannot understand its raison d’être or its point-of-view.


Somehow, with the Dahmer series (which should have been a movie focusing solely on Niecy Nash’s character’s perspective), a brilliant patchwork was created from multiple writers and multiple directors. Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story suffers from the same revolving door of behind-the-scenes staff. There is absolutely no clear through-line, no distinct interpretation, no reason for the audience to continue from episode to episode and, ultimately, no reason to watch it except out of sociological interest.


It has been so long since the Menendez trials, which were eventually overshadowed by the O. J. case (giving us one very clever scene late in the series), one wonders why go back to this material at all. There is no one to like, no one to root for, no one to learn from. With Dahmer, somehow, we got the full picture of one of the most fascinating serial killers of the 20th century and even came the closest we could to an understanding of him. With Lyle and Erik, two spoiled, rich, Bel-Air kids, we find no reason to even revisit them.

The back-and-forth plot shows the many varied narratives given in the trial—focusing on the alleged sexual abuse of the boys by José Menendez (Javier Bardem). We begin with the soft-spoken Erik (Cooper Koch) feeling guilty and end with the sense he was just as culpable as Lyle (Nicholas Alexander Chavez), who is portrayed throughout as a raging sociopath. We have endless scenes with their attorney Leslie Abramson (Ari Gaynor) defending the indefensible. It’s like an extended episode of Forensic Files on coke and with no resolution.


It is the very sloppily constructed arc of the miniseries that is most to blame. The show’s strongest episodes are directed by Carl Franklin and written by Brennan in collaboration either with Murphy or David McMillan. But with the fifth episode, “The Hurt Man,” which has been the most highly praised (God knows why), we have one single shot—Abramson’s back turned to us as Erik recites his “story” (which we have already heard before) played by an emotionless Koch. After that, the show never really recovers and then, you remember it wasn’t that good to start with.


Comparisons could be made to the rich, jaded characters in the early novels of Bret Easton Ellis, such as Less Than Zero. They dine at the fanciest restaurants, have zero personality, and commit unspeakable crimes all in a dull monotone. This somehow works on the page, but when translated to the dramatic medium, falls flat. The two leads are playing utterly obnoxious (not to mention cold-blooded) human beings. Why would we want to suffer through nine episodes with them? And why nine? Was there even enough material to stretch this out into a miniseries in the first place?


The most controversial aspect of the show has been the insinuation that Lyle and Erik were in an incestuous relationship with each other. From every viewpoint, this seems ridiculous, and the father’s sexual abuse was never proven despite testimonies for and against. We leave the series thinking that José and “Kitty” (a wasted Chloë Sevigny) are actually pretty good people despite some evidence to the contrary—victims of California life in the ‘80s with its promiscuous sex, ever-flowing booze, and little lines of white powder on glass tabletops. But, given all that has come before, I don’t know what to believe about any of the characters. Worse, I could care less.

The series’ one saving grace is a magnificent performance by Nathan Lane playing the journalist Dominick Dunne. How he makes high art out of a series of repetitive scenes is beyond me. Lane is a genius. More and more, Murphy is not. He is simply a voyeur, creating show upon show of cameras panning up and down gorgeous bodies—that is, when they’re not being eviscerated.

 

Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story

Netflix

 

Javier Bardem as José Menendez

Chloë Sevigny as Mary Louise “Kitty” Menendez

Cooper Koch as Erik Menendez

Nicholas Alexander Chavez as Lyle Menendez

Ari Gaynor as Leslie Abramson

Nathan Lane as Dominick Dunne

Vicki Lawrence as Leigh

 

Created by Ryan Murphy and Ian Brennan

Directed by Carl Franklin, Paris Barclay, Michael Uppendahl, Max Winkler, and Ian Brennan

Produced by Lou Eyrich, Todd Kubrak, Todd Nenninger, Reilly Smith, Peggy Tachdjian, and Danielle Wang

Written by Ryan Murphy, Ian Brennan, David McMillan, Reilly Smith, and Todd Kubrak

Music by Julia and Thomas Newman

Photographed by Jason McCormick and Barry Baz Idoine

Edited by Franzis Muller, Julia Franklin, Franklin Peterson, Peggy Tachdjian, and Danielle Wang

ryanctittle.com

  • alt.text.label.Facebook
  • X
  • Instagram

©2022-2025 Ryan C. Tittle

bottom of page