An Interview With
Brian Parks

The Invitation

Brian, I am so excited that we are including you in this anthology, as I have been a fan of your work for years. Your major plays from the '90s, Americana Absurdum and Goner, were instrumental in starting up the latest wave of indie theater, in my opinion. Where do you get the ideas for your plays? How far can a playwright go in terms of pushing buttons when writing dangerous satires of the sort you specialize in?

Well, first thanks for the kind words. I hope we were part of that wave, maybe as the weird-comedy wing of scene that featured folks like Target Margin and Elevator Repair Service. I'm not quite sure where the ideas come from — making comedy out of fears, I suppose. The plays are sort of controlled absurdity. I've always loved Preston Sturges and "His Girl Friday" and that style of movie comedy. I was just trying to take that kind of energy and filter it through some of the darker zones of humor. As for pushing buttons, that's not something I try to do intentionally — it's more about pushing deeper into an absurdity or into cliché or getting characters to say things a step beyond what they would do in a real circumstance. Though that all sounds more self-conscious than the actual writing process, which is really just me trying to amuse myself. The Invitation is a little different. It does not have the screwball element, and starts out as a more "proper" play, but then it does take on a strange life of its own.

You have had a long and fruitful collaboration with John Clancy, who directed The Invitation as well as many of your early works. How did you and John first hook up? What do you find particularly satisfying about working with the same director on many projects?

Aaron Beall of the late lamented Nada set us up a long time ago. John was great at finding the sense in the nonsense of my plays, and of organizing the chaos and making it playable. He also introduced me to a whole bunch of actors who found the same things funny that I did, and who could really sell the stuff. Knowing that makes you feel you can pull of the next one. It has worked well.

Similarly, you work with many of the same actors frequently (e.g., Dave Calvitto, Paul Urcioli, Leslie Farrell, etc.). Do you ever write characters with specific actors in mind? What are the pros and cons of working with actors on repeated projects?

No cons. I've written a number of the parts with the actors in mind — they can be muses in that way. My crazy lawyer Ermine Miami in Americana Absurdum for Paul, for example, or my crazy doctor Warren Wyandotte for Dave in Goner. "Crazy" seems to figure in a lot of the character descriptions. Also the pushed-too-far book publisher in The Invitation was meant for Dave. I called him David in the manuscript thinking Dave would play the role, then never got around to changing the character name. For the record, I've never seen Dave covered in blood. Here are some production photos (credit: Wordmonger)

What are the trends in contemporary theatre that most excite you? What are the trends that most distress you?

The "uptown" complaint would be the usual one, about how costs limit the ambition and scale of non-musical productions. Can you image a new straight play with a cast of 15 these days? But the energy of a cast that size is just amazing. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, the first play I ever saw and liked — one thinks of that as something of a small play, but its original Edinburgh Fringe production had a cast of 11, its first big-time production a cast of 26. And we thought Americana Absurdum was big at 10. My newer plays, like The Invitation, are smaller, but I do want to write another big-ass one. My "downtown" complaint is a fear that the postmodern strategy of fracturedness and collage has devolved too far, into a kind of lazy, self-amused randomness. A true artistic sensibility can pull this off, but I'm not seeing a lot of that kind of genius. The randomness of walking down the street in New York is honestly much more stimulating than most of the plays I've seen employing this strategy recently.

You've had work performed in the New York International Fringe Festival and the Edinburgh Fringe Festival. What have you enjoyed most about working in those two festivals? Are there important differences between the two?

We had a great time in the premiere FringeNYC (after a horrible first night where our two-hour show didn't start until 12:20 a.m.). FringeNYC has become better organized over the years, but it's become too spread out — it's a good way to do a show cheap and get some nice exposure, but it does not actually feel a lot like a festival. It gets lost geographically in a city as busy and huge in NYC. As an audience member and participant, I preferred the more ragtag early years, when it was more tightly located on the Lower East Side and East Village. But that'd be hard to pull off today. It's not my preferred model these days, but I do wish it well. Though I think they should move it date-wise so that it does not compete with Edinburgh, which also runs in August. They're just going to keep losing that battle. FringeNYC would do well to try to lure some of the international quality that Edinburgh gets, which they cannot do right now, since they're at the same time, and Edinburgh is the much bigger deal. There are always worthy shows in FringeNYC, but we all know that the quality of the average show is mediocre, weaker than shows during the normal year in NYC — another problem. Edinburgh is a lot more fun — a true festival, truly international in scope of talent and importance, and a pleasing bacchanal. More expensive for NYC artists to do, because of the travel and housing, but in terms of strict festival costs themselves about the same as FringeNYC on a per-show basis, because you get to do so many more performances..., 23 or so versus only 5 at FringeNYC. Every New York theater company should try it at least once.

The Invitation played at the Ohio Theatre, which is now lamentably slated to close in August 2010. Any particular thoughts about your experience working at the Ohio? Are you concerned about the closing of venues like the Ohio here in NYC?

I love the Ohio, like everyone else. I was thrilled to finally do a show there, and deeply, deeply lament its closing. It's a great space. I'm a little more sanguine these days, though, about the closing of spaces. On the one hand I hate it, but New York has always, always been in flux — to think you can freeze it in your own era, as much as you might want to, well, it's never been a frozen landscape in its history. I think you just need to keep moving and finding the new spots and opportunities and trying to innovate. It's probably healthier for downtown theater anyway — no one wants to become ossified. But I hope the Ohio can find a new home — the theater has a great project going.

Interview with Brian Parks was conducted by Martin Denton March 2010

Read more interviews with the playwrights