| Alex: | A playwright. May be any gender. |
| Blake: | An actor. May be any gender. |
I-1-1
| SETTING: | A stage with a bench or two chairs to indicate a bus stop. |
| AT RISE: | BLAKE is waiting center stage, sitting on bench (or chair). ALEX runs in. BOTH have a script that is not visible (such as in a pocket). |
Was that number 6? Did I miss it?
No. That was the 3 bus. I'm waiting on 6.
Good. I was certain I was running late.
You are. Bus 6 was supposed to be here five minutes ago.
Maybe we both missed it.
No. I got here fifteen minutes early. It hasn't shown.
Good. It should be here any moment then.
I-1-2
I expect it to be in about ten minutes. When I get here fifteen minutes early, it runs fifteen minutes late. When I get here one minute late, it runs one minute early. The bus just hates me.
Very solipsistic.
What?
I'm sorry. I meant that while you are justified to feel like that, the bus, and the universe for that matter, doesn't function for or against the interests of any specific person.
I know that.
Sorry. I wasn't trying to imply you didn't. I'm a philosophy professor. I tend to say things that make sense to me and my peers, but don't translate well to others who don't know about things like solipsism.
I study nerd jokes.
I-1-3
No. That doesn't work. Didn't you miss a line?
(Taking out script) Nothing important.
Yes. You should say that you know what it means first. I am surprised. You then say that you study nerd jokes.
I was trying to punch it up some. Having the nerd jokes line come out of nowhere makes it more surprising.
It isn't supposed to be surprising. That line, itself, is not a joke. It sets up the joke.
Fine. I'll follow the script.
I know what solipsistic means.
Really?
I-1-4
I study nerd jokes.
OK? (Shakes head wondering how that statement relates to the conversation.)
Nerds like to tell jokes that aren't funny at all. The only purpose to try and make others feel stupid.
I think that the nerds, I mean people who tell those jokes find them funny more than demeaning to others.
Nope. They are just intellectual traps disguised as jokes, designed to insult people for not knowing some obscure reference. But, I ruin it for them because I study the jokes so I know what they mean and I can give a fake laugh and tell them why it isn't very funny.
And that taught you the definition of solipsistic?
I heard the joke: Is it solipsistic in here or is it just me?
I-1-5
(Giggles) That's a good one. I haven't heard it before. It is funny because solips...
(Interrupts) Solipsistic is the philosophy that the only thing a person can be sure is true is him or herself. In common usage, it is refers to an extremely self-centered view of the world.
You memorized the definition of "solipsistic" just in case you heard that joke again?
Yep. And don't look at me like that. You are the one who thinks nerd jokes are funny.
I wouldn't call them nerd jokes, but yes. I know some funny ones.
Try me.
Well, I personally like ones that oversimplify complex philosophical concepts and places them in rather pedestrian situations.
I-1-6
That's not a funny one.
That wasn't the joke.
Go. What's the joke.
OK. I got this one... Three philosophers, Heisenberg, Gödel, and Chomsky, are in a bar. Heisenberg says, "This is clearly a joke, but can we be certain it is funny." Gödel answers, "We can't know because we are inside the joke." Chomsky states, "Of course it is funny. The idiot is just telling it wrong."
(Breaking character, gets his script out) I have an idea.
(Breaking character) What? We can't change the joke. That is an existing, popular joke.
I-1-7
So, Gödel refers to the concept of being inside the joke and Chomsky refers to a person outside the joke, right?
Yes. That's what makes it funny.
So, the script says that I say it is not funny and you say it is funny, especially if it were to be in the context that the two of us were characters in a play and one was telling the joke to the other as an example of a "nerd joke."
The entire point there is that our dialog mirrors the joke.
But, it doesn't continue. Chomsky has knowledge of the joke speaker, outside the joke.
Yes. Again, that is the point of the joke.
So, one of us should have knowledge that we are actually in a play and breaks character and talks to the audience.
I-1-8
(Thinks) I see the humor there, but I wouldn't go so far as to talk to the audience. Chomsky doesn't talk to the person telling the joke. He just knows that the jokester exists.
It would be a bit revolutionary. The actor breaks character and addresses the audience, a bit like a nested reality.
I wouldn't call it revolutionary. Breaking the fourth wall is common. Hamlet did it. Shakespeare wrote a lot of soliloquies.
Aside. A soliloquy is when the character gives a speech, thinking there is nobody around. An aside is when the character addresses the audience. Remember, I do Shakespeare in the park every summer.
Regardless. It exists. Since Plato's time, characters talk to the audience.
I'm not talking about an aside though. I won't talk to the audience as my character. I break character and talk to the audience as the actor playing the character.
I-1-9
That is just confusing. How would the audience ever know if you were the character or the actor?
That's for you to figure out. You are writing the play.
Well, perhaps the play could be a rehearsal and when you break character, you get out your script there and check the lines.
See? Small problem. Easy fix. Script in hand, I turn to the audience and say something like... wait. What is it called when there are two possible lines based on how the audience reacts?
Conditional dialog.
So, that's why they put the little "CD" above it. I didn't know it meant "conditional dialog"... OK. There is a conditional dialog. If the audience laughs at your joke, I grab my script and scold the audience with it like I am batting a bad dog on the nose, "Don't laugh. You don't get it. And if you did, it isn't funny."
I'm sure someone in the audience will get it.
I-1-10
That doesn't matter. I go on to say, "And it doesn't even make sense. He is supposed to be a philosophy professor. Heisenberg was a physicist, not a philosopher. And, (turns to ALEX) it is 'Girdel', not 'Gohdel.' (back to audience) And now his character is going to try and argue that physics is basically just philosophy. It is pathetic, not funny."
That is a bit harsh.
Go ahead. (Getting in character) That wasn't funny.
(In character) You see, Heisenberg is famous for...
(Interrupting) Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It has to do with measuring the position and movement of subatomic particles. It has nothing to do with three philosophers in a bar.
The humor is that their philosophies are overly generalized and inappropriately applied to a humorous situation.
Three dudes in a bar is a humorous situation?
I-1-11
It is a joke setup. Heisenberg recognizes it and states his philosophy.
Physics principle.
Physics is simply an application of philosophy. When you get a doctorate degree in physics, or any science for that matter, it is a doctor of philosophy, or PhD.
That's a very weak argument based on the fact that universities don't want to customize degree names for every field of study.
Heisenberg, as you noted, is famous for uncertainty... the very limits of what we can know. That's a philosophical question at its core. Physics, at its deepest levels, grapples with the fundamental nature of existence, of observation, of reality itself. That is why a doctorate in physics is a Doctor of Philosophy? It’s because it's all rooted in the same search for fundamental truths.
(Shrugs) Still a physicist in a philosophy joke.
I-1-12
What's the problem?
When I wrote this whole part, I thought it would be like getting a one-up in the argument here, but because you wanted to tell the audience that my character would be claiming physics is philosophy, it feels redundant.
It is. But, it isn't bad. It is like a musical.
How can it be like a musical.
So, I was in the Jesus Christ Superstar tour, what, like six years ago, right? (ALEX nods) It opens with an overture that has all the main themes to all the songs in the musical. It isn't because the author was too lazy to come up with a unique song. It is because he wanted to plant those musical ideas in the minds of the audience. Then, when they hear the song in the actual musical, it isn't new. They think, "Oh! I know that song!" They don't. They just heard it. But, they feel smart when they recognize it.
Musical foreshadowing.
I-1-13
Yes. Exactly, I am placing the idea in their minds. Then, when it happens, they get a warm and fuzzy feeling. In fact, I can briefly break character and look at them with a smug knowing look like this...
Wait. Doesn't this only work if the person playing my character is me, the person writing the play?
I don't know.
You are referring to me, the person, like I am the one who wrote the play.
You did write it.
But, if someone else performs the play, they won't be the author.
Have you ever had someone else perform any of your plays?
I-1-14
No, but that's not the point.
You are the author. You make it make sense. You write my, what do we call them, "actor lines" so they refer to the other actor, not the script writer. Or, you can make reference to the person who wrote the play without directing them to the other actor.
This is too complicated. How can we expect the audience to keep track of the story in the play and the story in the play inside the play?
A play in a play. Hamlet. The Mousetrap. Noises Off. I've acted in all three.
Yes. You are a successful actor and I feel like a pathetic unknown playwright.
It isn't a competition.
I-1-15
If we weren't good friends, it would really get to me. It is like you just stumble into roles. Half the time, you mention that you got into another play and there is never the buildup of auditions. It is like you go out to get lunch and come back with a performance contract while I sit here and write script after script after script and... Nothing. I'm living off translating Chinese instruction manuals into English and I barely know Chinese! I just run it through a translator and clean up the grammar. How is it that you are so blessed by the universe and I'm so punished?
Getting a bit solipsistic are we?
Listen. (referring to the script in his hand) This play is good, but it is clearly ripping off "Waiting for Godot" too much. So, I think that adding some asides will make it better. Think of it as a Godot parody where you have asides to the audience that make fun of the main plot devices in Godot.
You really think it will be obvious that I was sort of copying Godot?
Well, only for actors, like me, or playwrights, like you, or people who go see plays, or people who see movies or read books...
I-1-16
(Interrupts) OK! OK! Sometimes it is hard to have original ideas. Everything has been done.
Simpsons did it.
Beckett wrote "Waiting for Godot."
No. The philosophy that everything has been done before. It is called "Simpsons did it." They've been making episodes for thirty-some seasons, over eight hundred episodes. Doesn't matter what it is. Simpsons did it.
Wait... (flips through his script) I just realized something... (stops on a page) Go to page thirty-two. Start there.
It is like we are waiting for a bus that will never come.
Isn't that how it is? We are all just waiting, waiting for what comes next.
I-1-17
That's why I don't see the point of philosophy.
Because the bus is late?
No. It is because it all the same. It has all been done.
Don't say that. You'll put a million artists out of business.
I'm not saying it is terrible. It is fine that it has all been done. Look at popular music. It isn't new. It is just rehashing the same stuff over and over. Every song is a rip off of another song which is a rip off of a song before that. But, most people don't know enough about music to know what ripped off what. They just listen to the song and decide if they like it or not.
It is the problem of originality, a problem that has been around forever. Shakespeare was copying existing plays. Beethoven was copying Bach and Handel.
Right there. My character is making the "Simpsons did it" claim.
I-1-18
(Examining his script) It doesn't mention the Simpsons.
Not exactly, but it is the same thing. It is like my character and you, the actor, are very much the same.
I don't think so.
What's your college degree in?
I have a BA in philosophy.
And, my character here also makes references to acting when they get into that whole conversation about comedic timing.
OK. This is one of those points where I think I would get so frustrated that I would redirect it to the audience like (to the audience) So, he obviously likes me a bit too much. He based his main character on me. Is there something going on in his head that I should know about?
Not funny.
I-1-19
(To ALEX) The rule is that when an actor speaks to the audience, none of the other actors can hear it.
I heard you and no. There is nothing going on in my head.
OK. If you say so.
It is curious that you and my character are very similar. Then, I am very similar to your character.
You used us, flipped. Playwrights use people they know all the time. What is the rule? Write what you know?
This is more like someone writing a play who doesn't have enough imagination to come up with four unique characters. I bet he often wrote lines for the wrong character and had to go through, line by line, to figure out which character is which.
That only makes sense if we are just characters in a play written by someone else.
I-1-20
Like the characters in my play. How do they know they are in a play?
Like the three philosophers in a joke, but you are saying that is all in a play?
Why not? If we were just characters in a play, how would we know?
We are in the play. We can't know.
Thank you Mr. Gödel. (pronounced Gohdel)
Gödel. (pronounced Girdel)
What's the point?
The point of what?
I-1-21
If this is a joke in a play in a play... What's the point?
How am I supposed to know? Some idiot is probably sitting at a computer, writing line after line, correcting typos, and trying to think of a clever way to wrap this all up.
It isn't hard. It's all been done before. Just copy what someone else has done.
That's the point. What if he is trying to come up with something new, but no matter what he comes up with...
Simpsons did it.
Exactly.
Then what happens?
Maybe he gives up and we run out of lines.
Without a conclusion?
I-1-22
At least that would be original.
Not really. That is how "Waiting for Godot" ends.
Really?
Yep. Two guys sitting on a bench waiting in limbo for their next lines.
So, bus 6 isn't coming?
Neither is Godot.