| 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. Each actor has a copy of the script. |
| 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.
I-1-2
Good. It should be here any moment then.
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-1-3
I study nerd jokes.
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'm surprised. You then say that you study nerd jokes. Please! This is our last rehearsal. We have to get it right at least once before we're stuck up here in front of an audience.
Well, I was trying to punch it up some. Having the nerd jokes line come out of nowhere makes it more surprising. I have a natural feel for dialog flow.
It isn't supposed to be surprising. That line, itself, is not a joke. It sets up the joke.
Fine. You're the author. I'll follow the script.
I-1-4
I know what solipsistic means.
Really?
I study nerd jokes.
(Confused) OK?
(Explaining) You see, 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, (correcting his language) I mean people who tell those jokes, find them funny more than demeaning to others.
Nope. They're 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 (bellows a fake Ha Ha Ha) and tell them why it isn't very funny.
And that taught you the definition of solipsistic?
I-1-5
I heard the joke: Is it solipsistic in here or is it just me?
(Giggles) That's a good one. I haven't heard it before. It is funny because solips...
(Interrupts) I know. You said it. I'd already memorized it.
You memorized the definition of "solipsistic" just in case you heard that joke again?
Yep. And don't look at me like that. You're 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's funny." Gödel answers, "We can't know because we're inside the joke." Chomsky states, "Of course it's funny. The idiot's just telling it wrong."
(Breaking character, gets his script out) I have an idea.
(Breaking character) What? We can't change the joke. There's no time and it's 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's 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, you're missing the whole Inception possibility. Look, Chomsky has knowledge of the joke speaker, outside the joke, right?
Yes. Again, that's 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 whole 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. We don't have the time to argue. These asides exist. 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's just confusing. How would the audience ever know if you were the character or the actor?
That's for you to figure out. You're writing the play. Just put this in your noggin... Farris Bueller breaks the fourth wall, again, and says, "Hi. I'm Matthew Broderick. I play Farris Bueller. Have you seen a play recently? A real play. Not a movie. Not a sitcom. Real, honest entertainment. If not, why not come on down to Broadway and see what we have to offer. I hear The Producers is coming back. Get your tickets before they sell out."
I'm not slipping an ad in the middle of my play.
Forget that part. I got carried away. Just work out how the characters transition to the actors and back to the characters again. You are good at solving puzzles like that.
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's it called when there are two possible lines based on how the audience reacts?
I-1-10
Conditional dialog.
So, that's why they put the little "CD" above it. I didn't know it meant "conditional dialog"... OK. There's a conditional dialog. If the audience laughs at your joke, I grab my script and scold the audience with it like I'm 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 got it and I'm just a failing playwright.
That doesn't matter. I go on to say, "And it doesn't even make sense. He's 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's pathetic, not funny."
That's a bit harsh. Are you just trying to find a way to point out that you took two years of philosphy courses before becoming an actor?
No. This is about you and your play, not me. So, go ahead. (Puts script away, getting in character) That wasn't funny.
I-1-11
(Script away, 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?
It's 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's a doctor of philosophy, or PhD.
I-1-12
That's a very weak argument based on the fact that universities don't want to customize degree names for every field of study.
(Getting frustrated, pulling out script) This is ridiculous! It's supposed to be a comedy about waiting for a bus, not a dissertation on nested realities and whether physics is philosophy! There's too much... too much philosophical grandstanding!
(Picking up the script) So cut it.
What?
Cut it. Look— (flips through pages) all this stuff in the middle. Degrees, Philosphies, the Simpsons... it's all just more of the same. Rip it out.
I can't just rip out half the play!
Why not? (Literally tears pages from the script) Jump to near the ending. Anything we forgot? It was on those pages.
I-1-13
Blake!
What? It'll be faster, cleaner. Come on, flip to... (checks torn script) page thirty-two. Let's just pick up there.
There'll be plot holes!
Come on. You think they'd even notice? What, like the three of them who aren't busy checking their phones?
That's... No. We need them! No audience means no play means no contract means no rent money. Look! I'm at the end. I applied at McDonald's during lunch today. It was just a three question text message interview. A text interview! Not even a real person!
(Pause, actually sobered) ...Alex.
So yes, Blake. I need all three of them paying attention.
(Quietly) Okay. (Beat) So... should we put the pages back in?
I-1-14
(Defeated) No. You're right. Just... let's finish it. (Flips to page, takes a breath) Okay. From here.
And that killed him?
(In character, then immediately breaking) Wait- (grabs for torn pages on ground) Who died? What are we talking about?
(Shrugs) Must've been in here. (Holds up torn pages)
We can't just skip a death!
We already did. (Beat, then back in character) And that killed him?
(Hesitates, gives up) ...Apparently. (Getting back into character) It's tragic.
It's like life is just stuff that happens while you are waiting for a bus that will never come.
I-1-15
Isn't that how it is? We are all just waiting, waiting for what comes next.
That's why I don't see the point of philosophy.
Because the bus is late?
No. It's because it's all the same. It's all been done.
Don't say that. You'll put a million artists out of business.
I'm not saying it's terrible. It is fine that it's 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's the problem of originality, a problem that has been around forever. Shakespeare was copying existing plays. Beethoven was copying Bach and Handel.
I-1-16
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.
Right there. My character is making the "Simpsons did it" claim, which is a call-back to one of the conversations that you tore out. This won't work.
(Examining his script) Let it go. I can make it work like I did when I had to fill in for that muder mystery play thing... what was it called... something about clues to follow and some clues lead to one character and other clues lead another character...
Clue. The play from the movie from the game, Clue. You filled in for the butler, made up all your lines, convincing the audience that the victim was the actual murderer who somehow poisoned everyone else in the cast, including the director.
I-1-17
Yes. Nobody saw that coming.
And nobody will. Do you have any idea how long it will take to get that mess cleaned up so they try to launch it again?
I just know my characters, like here, waiting for this bus, pondering the depths of the human soul.
But, your character is not a free-thinking philospher. My character is. Yours is more pragmatic and self-loathing.
I just noticed... It's curious that you, personally, and my character are very similar. Then, I'm very similar to your character.
You used us, flipped. Playwrights use people they know all the time. What's the rule? Write what you know?
I-1-18
This is more like someone writing a play who doesn't have enough imagination to come up with four unique characters, so there's a worried writer and philisophical actor who are portraying the characters of a philisophy teacher and a down-trodden... This is clearly us just playing each other.
That only makes sense if instead of you writing this play we're just characters in a play written by someone else.
Like the characters in my play. How do they know they are in a play?
Like the three philosophers in the joke, but you're saying this, all of this, is in a play?
Why not? If we were just characters in a play, how would we know?
We're in the play. We can't know.
Thank you Mr. Gödel. (pronounced Gohdel)
Gödel. (pronounced Girdel)
I-1-19
What's the point?
The point of what?
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 this writer is trying to come up with something new, but no matter what that seemingly new this is...
Simpsons did it.
Exactly.
I-1-20
Then what happens?
Maybe the writer gives up and we run out of lines.
Without a conclusion?
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.