I watched part of one. It really is something I should do more of in the future. But, it is distracting to me being limited as a passive participant. I sure wish I could attend in person.
I'm not sure about how powerful lighting design might be in fixing a broken story. But I know it can establish time, setting and emotion; create contrast, comparison, and parallels; and it can comment on relationships, focus, scope, ad naseum.
Couldn't a subtle/gradual change in lighting or a change in tone by actor indicate a shift in a RST that wasn't spelled out in dialogue or action? Couldn't what was missing in text be supplied by subtext?
Couldn't an makeup artist's choice do the same thing? Costumes, et cetera? As a whole, could lighting, makeup, costumes, accent of actor, and more change his issue from the Future to the Past.. Maybe?
Maybe I'm thinking of Signposts in the wrong way? But I certainly think all of these things could illustrate signposts that weren't addressed by the playwright through dialog or action.
A signpost signals something. So does light, costumes, makeup, stage design, etc. I find the idea fascinating that a person might repair a broken script with Dramatica (not by rewriting exactly... but kind of)
To me, the idea of using Dramatica as a tool for actors, directors, and so on... fascinating.
I see a play as a blueprint of a Story. I might call a Dramatica Storyform the same. It just seems dangerous to find a Dramatica Storyform from a blueprint.
Can illustration break a Storyform? Or can it repair a Tale? I suspect it can. I could be wrong. Not the first time. But I see the separation of Storyform and Storytelling as a tool for understanding rather than being two different things. Like in the Matrix? Code vs. Object.