William Hoffman
His notable plays include “As Is,” (Drama Desk & Obie Award, Tony nom. – a recent production was performed on Theatre Row), TV adaptation directed by Michael Lindsay-Hogg; “xxx (aka Nativity Play); “Incantation,” “Thank you, Miss Victoria;” “Good Night, I Love You;” “A Quick Nutbread to Make Your Moth Water;” “Luna;” “Saturday Night at the Movies;” “From Fool to Hanged Man;” “Children’s Crusade;” “A Book of Etiquette;” “Giles De Rais;” “Gulliver’s Travels;” and “The Cherry Orchard, Part II.” Mr. Hoffman was commissioned by The Metropolitan Opera Co to write the libretto for “The Ghosts of Versailles” to celebrate the company’s Centennial, and a TV production starred Teresa Stratas, Renee Fleming and Graham Clark (Emmy nom.). He was an editor at Hill and Wang, where he created the collection: New American Plays or known as Gay Plays: A First Collection. Mr. Hoffman is currently an Associate Professor of Theatre at Lehman College at The City University of New York. He wasInducted onto the Playwrights' Sidewalk at the Lucille Lortel Theatre, and created “Conversations with William M. Hoffman,” a series of discussions for CUNY TV.
When did you first know writing would become your life?
I never knew that. It feels like I’m still making up my mind. I never started out to be a writer. I was a poet to begin with, and it felt very natural. The rest I look at, all the kinds of writing and poetry, they’re disguised sometimes. They’re really all one thing for me, and I have to make up my mind each time as I’m doing it.
I usually write the plays I want to see. Presently, I’m working on a new play: a family saga.
Did you begin writing at an early age?
When I was five or six I started to rhyme; I liked re-arranging things. It was a form of poetry for me. I like to have order. I grew up in Inwood, then we moved to Rego Park. I never went to the theatre when I was young. I was probably thirteen the first time I went to see a Broadway show, and of all things, it was “Long Day’s Journey into Night” with Fredrick March and Florence Eldridge. I can’t say I liked it all that much. I wasn’t a theatre fan.
How did the period when you were writing your early plays affect your development as a playwright?
It was a very exciting time because there we were, really in the midst of creating theatre. A creative ferment, and the emphasis was on the new. Lanford Wilson was there; I loved his work, and occasionally Bob Patrick’s work, Jeff Weiss’s – it had an affect on me. I didn’t know you could move so quickly through time and space. I found theatre was sometimes too slow. I wanted it to move, like film. Dylan Thomas did it in “Under Milkwood.” Shakespeare moved fluidly through time and space. That’s the real problem in theatre exposition. And through these guys I leaned the regular time of exposition was way too slow. How can you do away with it?
An audience comes for the story – so how do you solve this problem? I think you have to ask: How much time do I have before they start ‘channel surfing’ in their heads? You’ve got to grab them. For me its not a problem of the span of attention. As long as I’m focused on you, you better have something to say.
How long did you work on “As Is” before it was first produced?
About five years, countless readings, it was work-shopped at Circle Rep and elsewhere. It was terrifying period, all my friends were dying. I had no reason to believe I wouldn’t die. The people who died were just like me. To this day I don’t know why I survived. They didn’t do anything I didn’t do. I feel very fortunate.
What kind of pressure did you encounter once “As Is” received all the accolades it did?
There was a lot of internal pressure. For me, it was very destructive. I wasn’t trying to write a hit.
Were you pleased by the recent production of “As Is” on Theatre Row?
I felt that the guy playing Rich may have been the best one, he rivaled the original actor. As a young performer, he was fascinating. I was tempted, at one or two of the early rehearsals to say: I feel he’s wrong but I said shut up to myself, and his instincts were some ways better. I learned a lot about myself from the experience.
I thought I knew the right way for it to be done, but that’s not a good attitude. I’ve seen many productions. The truth is I hadn’t seen this version, and it was stronger than what others had done. It changed the balance of the play, and I wasn’t ready to see the shift.
The actress was right for the play. Colleen Dewhurst in the TV production had played her too nice. Maybe I didn’t describe the role well enough, it could have been my fault. You have to be careful with stage directions. The woman was modeled on a wonderful person, but she was burnt out. She was lying drunk in the gutter. It was the beginning of the epidemic; not all stories have happy endings. I was portraying that kind of a person.
I thought the French production was brilliant. They had cast a standup comedienne, her comic delivery was breathy. She looked like a person who was going to crash.
You were commissioned by The Metropolitan Opera Company to write the libretto for “The Ghosts of Versailles.” And then it also became a television production starring Teresa Stratas and Renee Fleming, and Graham Clark. How much research did you do to write it?
I did spend a lot of time researching in France. I read the transcript of the trial, it was breathtaking, I read the newspaper accounts about her. I feel she was, in a sense, lynched. We tend to think the revolution may have gone too far, but at its heart, it was a reasonable revolution. The revolution was a catastrophe. We’ve always looked at the revolution as a positive thing but there’s another point of view. We forget France was not starving to the degree we all think it was; it was a thing of the past. The king and queen were liberal; this is important to know, and I’m not a monarchist. I’m not a fanatical revolutionist, I believe in revolution.
I was writing a tragic love story about the ghost of Marie Antoinette and Beaumarchais. It was hideously hard work, it took me twelve years. I wrote it while I was doing other plays. The DVD is now available, just this month it was made available, I think it’s fantastic.
I’m very interested what you discovered about Chekhov when you wrote “The Cherry Orchard, Part II?”
The André Gregory production presented a production which was a forerunner of the Russian revolution. Chekhov was a skeptic about revolution if you read his words. Chekhov was very skeptical about gigantic leaps into the future. He was a conservative; he wasn’t hoping for a revolution, and the production made it seem like he was a professional Bolshevik. It was a snapshot of Russia in 1903. Tony and I wrote the play with the ending as Firs goes to sleep and the hoof beats go off in the distance and then he snores. Then we hear hoof beats arrive. We learn very quickly Lopakin has invited a group of Tolystoyian pacifists to settle on the estate in return for clearing away the stumps. He was interested in building a housing development. In the group are the first pacifists, and the revolutionaries are modeled on Trotsky and Stalin. We follow the evolution of this group into Bolsheviks into 191, ending in a blood bath. It think it’s very powerful and very funny – with each scene done in a pre-revolution style.
As an editor at Hill and Wang, you promoted the careers of Lanford Wilson, Tom Eyen, and Joe Orton, among others, by including their plays in your New American Plays series 2,3 and 4or his anthology, “Gay Plays: A First Collection.”
I decided to do that before I was a playwright. I was really promoting the careers of my friends at Café Cino. I thought their work was fascinating. Eventually I ran away with the circus. Or the circus seduced me, or I seduced the circus.
I remember at one point I wanted to get Lanford published. I looked seriously at the publisher in his office, and played a tape of Lanford’s play, “Lady Bright.” He became Lanford’s publisher because of my salesmanship. I was much more timid about my work.
You’re currently an Associate Professor of Theatre at Lehman College at City University of New York and interviewed many guests on your“Conversations with William M. Hoffman,” a series of discussions for CUNY TV. How did that begin?
It dawned on me I know so many people, why shouldn’t I talk to them on the air. So I stated doing it at SUNY Purchase. I first invited my own friends and then I invited people I didn’t know and wanted to get to know. It’s evolved since I’ve been doing it close to ten years on CUNY TV. I just chat with people. I call myself the “anti-Charlie Rose.”
I like to hear my friends talk about themselves. I was curious about Jean-Claude (van Italie) when I had him on as I’ve known him for years. What he said gave me a lot to think about it. He said things I didn’t know.
What did you learn when you first began teaching?
That I can do it and how much I love doing it. I don’t love every aspect of it. I hate the administrative part of it. But I love working with young people; I find it inspirational. They invent new things.
Life goes on, very few things I find exciting, yet I can see in my classes, playwrights coming up with exciting choices. I created a screenwriting course called “Queer Theatre.” I was one of the inventors of it. But today no one knows about it and we read these plays.
I believe everyone needs an education. We take it for granted living in New York City. It shouldn’t be taken for granted. Freedom is a very precious thing; we fought hard for it. I take it personally. I’ve been through a lot.
