Amazing 'Flatliners' Plot, Visually Mesmerizing..

An Amazing Sci-Fi Thriller Starring  Kiefer Sutherland, Julia Roberts, William Baldwin, Oliver Platt, Kevin Bacon

Nelson Wright (Kiefer Sutherland), convinces four of his medical school classmates — Joe Hurley (William Baldwin), David Labraccio (Kevin Bacon), Randall Steckle (Oliver Platt) and Rachel Manus (Julia Roberts) — to help him discover what lies beyond death. Nelson flatlines for one minute before his classmates resuscitate him. While "dead", he experiences a sort of afterlife. He sees a vision of a boy he bullied as a child, Billy Mahoney. He merely tells his friends that he can't describe what he saw, but something is there. The others decide to follow Nelson's daring feat. Joe flatlines next, and he experiences an erotic afterlife sequence. He agrees with Nelson's claim that something indeed exists. David is third to flatline, and he sees a vision of a girl, Winnie Hicks (Kimberly Scott), that he bullied in grade school. The three men start to experience vivid hallucinations that are related to their afterlife visions, but Nelson's circumstances are particularly freakish; he is repeatedly physically attacked by Billy Mahoney and each day presents with fresh cuts and wounds. Joe, engaged to be married, is haunted by home videos that he secretly filmed of his sexual trysts with other women. David is confronted by a vision of Winnie Hicks on a train, and she verbally taunts him like he did to her.

At Rachel's insistence, the group agrees to let her flatline next. David, disturbed by his hallucinations, has a change of heart and tries to stop the others from giving Rachel their same fate, but she has already flatlined by the time he arrives. They are almost unable to bring Rachel back to life after the power goes out, as the men cannot shock her with the defibrillator paddles. Luckily they manage to recusitate her, but she, too, begins experiencing haunting flashbacks: in her case, memories of her father committing suicide when she was a young girl. One by one, the other men open up about their harrowing experiences to one another, and David decides to put his visions to a stop. He tracks down Winnie Hicks, now grown up, and travels to her home to offer an apology. Winnie thanks him, and accepts his apology. David immediately feels a weight lifted off his shoulders. Nelson, who has accompanied David on the trip, remains alone in David's truck and catches a glimpse of Billy Mahoney darting past outside. Suddenly Billy appears inside the truck and attacks him with a pickaxe. Nelson struggles to fend him off and David arrives on the scene just in time to end the hallucination and prevent serious injury to Nelson, revealing that Nelson was alone in the truck and that he was attacking himself with the pickaxe. Meanwhile, Joe's fiancée, Anne (Hope Davis), unexpectedly comes to his apartment, and she breaks off their engagement after discovering his videos. Joe's visions cease after Anne leaves him. Rachel seeks comfort in the arms of David, and the two spend the night together in bed. While Rachel and David are together, Nelson brings Steckle and Joe to the gravesite of Billy Mahoney. He reveals a long-kept secret: he and his friends inadvertently killed Billy Mahoney as youngsters when they chased him up a tree and pelted him with rocks, causing him to fall to his death. Nelson mutters to himself about making amends, then suddenly storms off, leaving Joe and Steckle stranded.

David leaves Rachel alone in order to pick up Joe and Steckle from the cemetery. While alone, Rachel goes to the bathroom, and encounters her father. He apologizes to his daughter, and her guilt over his death is lifted when she discovers that he was addicted to heroin. Rachel receives a phone call from Nelson, who tells her that he needs to flatline again in order to make amends. He apologizes for involving her and their friends in his plan before hanging up. Rachel and the other three men realize what Nelson is planning and race to save him, eventually reaching him more than nine minutes after his phone call. They work feverishly to save him, but too much time has passed and they decide to give up. Meanwhile, in the afterlife a young Nelson has reversed roles with Billy Mahoney and is being pelted with rocks by him and his other friends while up in the tree. Young Nelson falls from the tree, morphing into the older Nelson just before hitting the ground. He looks up to see Billy Mahoney standing over him and smiling before slowly walking away into a bright light, having made peace. In an act of utter frustration, David gives Nelson one last shock. Miraculously, Nelson is resuscitated, and after regaining consciousness he tells them, "Today wasn't a good day to die."

(Source Wikipedia)

Romanticism, Romantic Era, Romantic Period

Romanticism (also the Romantic era or the Romantic period) was an artistic, literary, and intellectual movement that originated in Europe toward the end of the 18th century and in most areas was at its peak in the approximate period from 1800 to 1850. Partly a reaction to the Industrial Revolution, it was also a revolt against the aristocratic social and political norms of the Age of Enlightenment and a reaction against the scientific rationalization of nature. It was embodied most strongly in the visual arts, music, and literature, but had a major impact on historiography, education and the natural sciences. Its effect on politics was considerable and complex; while for much of the peak Romantic period it was associated with liberalism and radicalism, its long-term effect on the growth of nationalism was probably more significant.
The movement validated intense emotion as an authentic source of aesthetic experience, placing new emphasis on such emotions as apprehension, horror and terror, and awe—especially that which is experienced in confronting the sublimity of untamed nature and its picturesque qualities: both new aesthetic categories. It elevated folk art and ancient custom to a noble status, made spontaneity a desirable characteristic (as in the musical impromptu), and argued for a "natural" epistemology of human activities, as conditioned by nature in the form of language and customary usage. Romanticism reached beyond the rational and Classicist ideal models to raise a revived medievalism and elements of art and narrative perceived to be authentically medieval in an attempt to escape the confines of population growth, urban sprawl, and industrialism. Romanticism embraced the exotic, the unfamiliar, and the distant in modes more authentic than Rococo chinoiserie, harnessing the power of the imagination to envision and to escape.
Although the movement was rooted in the German Sturm und Drang movement, which prized intuition and emotion over the rationalism of the Enlightenment, the events of and ideologies that led to the French Revolution planted the seeds from which both Romanticism and the Counter-Enlightenment sprouted. The confines of the Industrial Revolution also had their influence on Romanticism, which was in part an escape from modern realities. Indeed, in the second half of the 19th century, "Realism" was offered as a polarized opposite to Romanticism. Romanticism assigned a high value to the achievements of 'heroic' individualists and artists, whose pioneering examples, it maintained, would raise the quality of society. It also vouched for the individual imagination as a critical authority allowed of freedom from classical notions of form in art. There was a strong recourse to historical and natural inevitability, a Zeitgeist, in the representation of its ideas.

Basic characteristics

 

Defining the nature of Romanticism may be approached from the starting point of the primary importance of the free expression of the feelings of the artist. The importance the Romantics placed on untrammelled feeling is summed up in the remark of the German painter Caspar David Friedrich that "the artist's feeling is his law". To William Wordsworth poetry should be "the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings". In order to truly express these feelings, the content of the art must come from the imagination of the artist, with as little interference as possible from "artificial" rules dictating what a work should consist of. Coleridge was not alone in believing that there were natural laws governing these matters which the imagination, at least of a good creative artist, would freely and unconsciously follow through artistic inspiration if left alone to do so. As well as rules, the influence of models from other works would impede the creator's own imagination, so originality was absolutely essential. The concept of the genius, or artist who was able to produce his own original work through this process of "creation from nothingness", is key to Romanticism, and to be derivative was the worst sin. This idea is often called "romantic originality."
Not essential to Romanticism, but so widespread as to be normative, was a strong belief and interest in the importance of nature. However this is particularly in the effect of nature upon the artist when he is surrounded by it, preferably alone. In contrast to the usually very social art of the Enlightenment, Romantics were distrustful of the human world, and tended to believe that a close connection with nature was mentally and morally healthy. Romantic art addressed its audiences directly and personally with what was intended to be felt as the personal voice of the artist. So, in literature, "much of romantic poetry invited the reader to identify the protagonists with the poets themselves". According to Isaiah Berlin, Romanticism embodied "a new and restless spirit, seeking violently to burst through old and cramping forms, a nervous preoccupation with perpetually changing inner states of consciousness, a longing for the unbounded and the indefinable, for perpetual movement and change, an effort to return to the forgotten sources of life, a passionate effort at self-assertion both individual and collective, a search after means of expressing an unappeasable yearning for unattainable goals."

(Source Wikipedia)

Kill Your Outline: A Screenwriter’s Guide To Discovering Your Character, by Jacob Krueger Studio!

Young writers often get obsessed with writing for the audience. Even in the earliest drafts, their focus is on sneaking in tons of exposition about their characters, layering themes or symbolic motifs, or carefully outlining the mechanics for a surprise ending they think will be the key to selling their script.
It’s no wonder that this happens. After all, these are the things that film scholars rave about and film studies classes teach– complex psychological portraits and deep thematic importance, screenplay structures, beat sheets and outlines.
So why do movies written this way so often come out flat? Why does it seem like nothing is happening, when the writer has put so much effort into building the psychological life of the character? Why do all the themes and motifs just feel like smoke and mirrors? Why is no one reacting to the surprise ending you’ve worked so hard to craft?
It’s not because these things aren’t important. They are. It’s because you’re focusing on them TOO EARLY.
At the beginning of the process there’s only one thing that’s important: the profound journey your character is undertaking and the irrevocable changes in your character’s life that go along with it.
Thematic ideas are not something you impose on your script. They’re something you discover as you get to know your character. Story structure is not something you plot out before you’ve written a single word, it’s something that reveals itself to you as your character’s journey unfolds.
Until you figure out your character’s journey, exposition will only slow your movie down, no matter how profound, exciting, or psychologically fascinating your character’s past may be.
“But what about my outline?” you may be thinking. “I already know my character’s journey!”
No way. Not likely.
If you think you already know your character’s journey before you even sit down to write your character, it’s probably not a very profound journey. How could it be? You don’t even know who your character is yet! In fact, if you can predict your character’s journey before you even start writing, the chances are the audience can too.
What could be more boring? Not only for the audience, but for you as a writer.
Your outline may make you feel safe, but great writing is not about painting by numbers. It’s about stepping into your character, and taking a profound journey with her.
Kill your outline.
Get to know your character.
Decide out what she wants more than anything, and enjoy coming up with the most exciting, challenging, and inventive ways you can to make it hard for her to get it. Ask yourself, what’s the best or the worst thing that could happen at this moment? And see how your character reacts when it does.
Forget about exposition or setting up things for the audience. You’ll have plenty of time for that later. For now, just let your character be herself, say what she would say in the situation, and do what she would do.
Forget about how it all fits together or what it all means. Instead just follow your character as she strives to get what she wants against impossible odds. Notice her specific behaviors. How she talks and acts differently than anyone else in the world. How she responds to things in unexpected ways. Notice how your dialogue suddenly feels more real and your characters actions more motivated and specific.
Notice how your character’s journey reveals itself to you.
Notice how a big surprise you never saw coming seems to bubble up from nowhere, and actually surprises you.
Of course, this is only the first step. There will come a time when you do need to focus on your audience. When you need to set things up and pay things off, layer in theme, and hone your structure.
But not right now. Right now is the time to keep your focus on what’s really important.
Trust your character.
Kill your outline.
Ready to learn a new approach to screenwriting?

Who Is Steering Your Creative Ship?

by, Jacob Krueger

 

The Captain And The Navigator

If you imagine your writing as a ship, then you can think of your subconscious, creative brain as the Captain, and the conscious editing brain as the Navigator.
Having a good Navigator is a vital part of keeping the ship afloat. After all, it’s the Navigator who reads the charts, plots the course, adjusts for winds and currents, and makes sure you arrive in the most efficient way possible. The Navigator makes the plans that make the Captain’s goals possible. Tell the Navigator where you want to go, and the Navigator will get you there.

 

The Trouble Occurs When The Navigator Starts To Think He Or She Is The Captain

 

Imagine your terrified Editing Brain Navigator, clinging desperately to the helm in the middle of the storm, seeing the rocks ahead, and not knowing what to do about them: frantically pouring through screenwriting books, planning, outlining, writing character backstories, building image systems, refining your hook, organizing around a theme, obsessing day and night…
But no matter what it does the rocks just keep getting closer. Because your editing brain doesn’t know how to steer the ship.
Unlike the Captain, the Navigator has no idea how the intricate inner workings of the ship actually function. They don’t know how to run the rigging, manage the emotions of the crew, or make the millions of instinctual decisions that make the difference between survival and destruction.
And yet, most of us continually put the Navigator in this position. Mostly because, just like the terrified Navigator, we’re unaware that the Captain even exists. Or unwilling to trust them if they do.

 

Learning To Trust Your Creative Brain

It’s only natural that we’d feel this way. Our entire education system, since we were in kindergarten, has taught us to ignore the instinctual, creative side that actually governs 90% of what we do, and to focus instead on the editing side of our brain– the part that thinks before we speak, second guesses our actions, and prepares us for a role on the Henry Ford assembly line of life.
This same mistake is repeated by almost every screenwriting book on the market and almost every screenwriting guru on circuit. More and more and more education for the editing brain, until it thinks it’s the only brain on the ship.
And the next thing you know, you’re completely blocked.

 

This Is Where Writer’s Block Comes From.

Just like in any enterprise, when you travel too long with the wrong person at the helm, there’s usually a mutiny brewing. And of course the same is true when it comes to writing.
Your writer’s block may take the form of complete paralysis. Or it may take an even more insidious form– dull, flat, boring writing– the feeling that there’s something inside you that’s dying to come out, but that it’s never making its way onto the page.

 

Put Your Creative Captain Back At The Helm

Unlike your conscious editing Navigator, your subconscious creative Captain doesn’t give a hoot about Archetypes, Structure, Format, Symbol or any of the millions of other informational ideas that gurus preach and film professors salivate over.
There will be plenty of time for that later. But first you need to learn to steer your ship.
That’s why my screenwriting workshops begin with mind opening exercises, designed to help your over-anxious Navigator retire to its cabin for some well-deserved rest, and put your creative Captain back in control.
Gradually, you’ll learn how to balance the two sides of your writer’s mind, so that both Captain and Navigator to work together in harmony to develop and craft your voice as a writer, discover the story within you, and translate it to the page.

I-N-G, These 3 Letters Are Not Your Friends

By, Jacob Krueger


Want to revolutionize your writing in three letters or less?  Do a hunt through your writing for these three letters:
I-N-G.
No, I’m not talking about the internet bank. I’m talking about the three letters that turn verbs into nouns (gerunds for you English teachers) grinding your story to a halt and creating static, and usually non-specific images.
-ing words (gerunds for you English teachers) create static images in your writing.  Verbs create a sense of action.  So sometimes simply by switching an -ing word to an active verb, you can change the whole feeling of your action.
It’s not that gerunds are bad in themselves. If you tried to cut every gerund out of your script you’d probably go crazy, and your script might not be any better for yourtroubles.
At the same time, gerunds can often be red-flags for missed opportunities in your writing. So if you’re using a ton of gerunds in your action, you may want to take a closer look, and make sure you’re getting everything you can out of them.

 

The Difference Between Verbs and Gerunds

Movies are active, and they’re told through exciting images of exciting characters doing exciting things in exciting ways. And because movies are told in the cuts between scenes, they work best when we’re cutting from one big moment to another– big changes, big decisions, big choices your characters make.
Unlike the active verbs that capture the unique ways your characters pursue their objectives and react to problems in their world, gerunds suggest states of being, continuing action and static images– the opposite of the specific moments that truly capture your character and make your movie feel like it’s happening NOW.

 

Is all this really so important?

In a word, yes.
At first look, there might not seem to be a big difference between phrases like:
Elizabeth is standing/Elizabeth stands
Mary is running/Mary runs
John is dancing/John dances
But the big problem with gerunds is not just that they can often feel static. It’s that their very nature can make it difficult to isolate the specific moments that capture your character’s journey. You may feel like you’re writing actions, but oftentimes you’re not. You’re writing states of being.

 

And that means you’re not thinking in movie time.

“Elizabeth is standing” tells us Elizabeth’s placement– as if she was a static figure in a picture. As a writer,your job is not to be a set decorator. And let’s face it– it’s hard to visualize placement of stuff in a room you’re not even seeing.
“Elizabeth stands” doesn’t exactly capture the Academy Award for excitement. But at least it can suggest that a choice is being made– that she stood up for a reason. That she is no longer seated. That something is happening.
“Mary is running” suggests that Mary is in the process of running. But this isn’t what your director is going to shoot. What she is actually going to shoot is a bunch of cool moments and specific actions that when strung together capture the feeling of Mary’s run.
When you write “Mary is running” you’re not thinking like a filmmaker. You’re once again thinking like a set decorator– setting the scene, rather than capturing the moments.
If instead you forced yourself to capture the moments that say “Mary is running” and the actions she takes as she runs, you would learn all kinds of important stuff about your character.

 

Mary is doing more than just running.

You might visualize the awkward way her arms flop as she runs. You might imagine the slap of a flip flop against the pavement. You might see her stumble over her paisley skirt and tumble into the mud.
Or, you might imagine the rhythmic thump of Mary’s 300 dollar running shoes. Feel her rock hard biceps strain against her moisture-wicking running shirt, hear her heart rate monitor sound an alarm, and see her ignore it and quicken her pace.
These visual moments would not only be a lot more fun to watch than “Mary is running”, they would also reveal so much more about who Mary is, what she wants, and the unique way she pursues those desires.

 

Revolutionize your writing.

Each specific moment you create in your action becomes something you can riff on later in your script, to capture your character’s journey in powerful ways.
The moment when the first Mary struggles to get the stain out of her paisley skirt, or trades it for a pair of running shorts, or jumps effortlessly over the mud puddle she once dreaded.
The moment when the second Mary hears the heart rate alarm sound and stops running, when her bicep strains against a hospital blood pressure cuff rather than her running shirt.
In this way, you can transform missed opportunities into transformative moments that create a visual language for your movie, capture the unique spirit ofyour character, and drive the action of your story forward in exciting ways.
Keep a lookout for those three little letters i-n-g.  And notice what it does for your writing.

Η Παύση και το Χάσμα, Από το Δραματικό Στούντιο του Εσωθεάτρου!

Γιάννης Καλατζόπουλος

…. Μεγάλη παύση… Αν δεν επρόκειτο για πραγματική ζωή αλλά για σκηνή θεατρικού έργου, οι θεατές θα είχαν σταματήσει να παρακολουθούν. Θα είχαν κοιμηθεί, θα είχαν αρχίσει να κουβεντιάζουν χαμηλόφωνα για ποδόσφαιρο οι άντρες, για ζώδια οι γυναίκες και μερικοί θα είχαν αρχίσει να αποχωρούν πιστεύοντας πως η παράσταση ήταν τελικά πολύ μεταμοντέρνα και τελείωνε έτσι απότομα, χωρίς φινάλε.

«Αυτή είναι η διαφορά της παύσης από το χάσμα. Στην παύση παρόλο που δεν μιλάει κανείς, κάτι γίνεται πάνω στη σκηνή. Υπάρχει ένταση, υπάρχει ηλεκτρισμός. Ο θεατής αισθάνεται ότι οι ήρωες σκέφτονται, βάλλονται εσωτερικά, ετοιμάζονται κάτι να πουν, κάτι να κάνουν… όσο κρατάει αυτός ο ηλεκτρισμός, όσο οι θεατές είναι βέβαιοι ότι την επόμενη κιόλας στιγμή θα γίνει κάτι, η παύση αντέχει και μάλιστα είναι ένα πολύ ισχυρό θεατρικό τέχνασμα. Αν όμως αυτή η «επόμενη στιγμή» περάσει χωρίς να γίνει τίποτε, τότε ξαφνικά η παύση εκφυλίζεται σε «χάσμα», δηλαδή στην απόλυτη καταστροφή. Τα μάγια διαλύονται, η ατμόσφαιρα εξατμίζεται, ο δεσμός - που έκανε τους θεατές να αιωρούνται στο χώρο και το χρόνο σαν ακροβάτες αγκιστρωμένοι κάπου μέσα στα αόρατα συρματόσκοινα που κρατούσαν οι ηθοποιοί με τα δόντια, κρεμασμένοι κι αυτοί ανάποδα και αιωρούμενοι στις ανεμόσκαλες του συγγραφέα-σπάει.»

Κάπως έτσι προσπαθούσε να εξηγήσει στα παιδιά της σχολής, το μυστήριο της θεατρικής παύσης κάθε φορά που δούλευαν πάνω σε έργα του λεγόμενου ψυχολογικού-ρεαλιστικού θεάτρου…

Από το βιβλίο «Γιαννάκης: το παιδί θαύμα.»
Γιάννης Καλατζόπουλος. Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη

Ρήσεις για την Αλήθεια στο Θέατρο

«Ο ηθοποιός πρέπει πρώτα απ’ όλα να πιστεύει ότι λαμβάνει χώρα επί σκηνής και κυρίως, όσα εκείνος πράττει. Και κανείς μπορεί να πιστεύει μόνο στην αλήθεια…»

Κωνσταντίνος Στανισλάβσκι

«Υποδύομαι δεν σημαίνει ψεύδομαι· σημαίνει πως λέω τη βαθύτερη αλήθεια.»

Sanford Meisner

«Το θέατρο κινείται από ένα κατώτερο επίπεδο πραγματικότητας στην πραγματικότητα μιας βαθύτερης ύπαρξης. Από την επιφάνεια μας εκτοξεύει στο αδιαφανές των απόκρυφων ενεργειών… Το θέατρο κινεί το εσωτερικό μας σύμπαν προς τον κόσμο των απτών γεγονότων, ωθώντας την Μικρή μας ιστορία να χορέψει με την Μεγάλη Ιστορία.»

Eugenio Barba

«Η αλήθεια είναι η περιοχή της Τέχνης, όχι η φυσικότης… Υποκαθιστώντας την αλήθεια με την φυσικότητα, το δραματικό θέατρο στερήθηκε την ικανότητα να συλλαμβάνει το βαθύτερα αληθινό. Γιατί η αλήθεια της Τέχνης είναι ζωή συμπυκνωμένη, εντατική εν δράσει, με χαρακτήρα οικουμενικό, ενώ η φυσικότητα είναι απατηλό στιγμιότυπο.»

Άγγελος Τερζάκης

«Αν το μόνο που κάνεις είναι να μιμείσαι την ορατή Φύση, τότε καταγίνεσαι μ’ ένα κουφάρι, ένα νεκρό σκαρίφημα ή ένα τερατούργημα. Η αλήθεια ζει σε αυτό  που φτάνει πίσω και πέρα από το ορατό και αισθητό.»

Αουρομπίντο

Μπόμποκ, Εσωθέατρο

Το σημείωμα του σκηνοθέτη

Στο διήγημα αυτό, γραμμένο το 1873 και μάλλον άγνωστο στο ευρύ κοινό, κυριαρχεί μια διάθεση ανάλαφρη και μια ματιά σκωπτική, που συναντά κανείς σπάνια στα γραπτά του συγγραφέα. Ο Ντοστογιέφσκι πλάθει με μαεστρία ήρωες που βασανίζονται από εσωτερικές αντιθέσεις και αντιφάσεις, ενοχές και ιδεοληψίες, ήρωες που ταλαντεύονται στα όρια ανομολόγητων ενστίκτων, του πάθους ή και της τρέλας ακόμα, ακροβατώντας ανύποπτοι συνήθως, ανάμεσα σε μια επικείμενη συντριβή και μια ενδεχόμενη σωτηρία. Η -πάντα λοιπόν παρούσα- ντοστογιεφσκική τάση για φιλοσοφικό στοχασμό και ορθοτόμηση της ανθρώπινης ψυχής, αυτή την φορά, στον «Μπόμποκ» ντύνεται πέπλο κωμικό και φόρμα σατιρική.

Η διασκευή υπηρέτησε πρωτίστως την θεατρικότητα ενώ η σκηνοθετική γραμμή τόνισε ιδιαίτερα τα γκροτέσκο σημεία του έργου, προς χάριν φυσικά του κωμικού στοιχείου και φρόντισε να προβληθεί το κείμενο και κυρίως ο «κόσμος» που ελλοχεύει πίσω απ' αυτό (το ΥΠΟ-ΚΕΙΜΕΝΟ κατά Στανισλάβσκι) κι ακόμα, να φανεί εναργώς η φιλοσοφική πρόθεση του συγγραφέα.

Θέλω να ευχαριστήσω θερμά τους συνεργάτες μου συντελεστές αυτής της παράστασης και κυρίως βέβαια, τους φανερούς εκφραστές της, τους ηθοποιούς, των οποίων η επίμοχθη εργασία και το πλούσιο ταλέντο τους, έφεραν το αποτέλεσμα που θα δείτε.

Επίσης, νιώθω την ανάγκη να ευχαριστήσω κι εσάς, που σε δύσκολους καιρούς μας τιμάτε και μας στηρίζετε με την ευγενή παρουσία σας.

Τάσος Προύσαλης

Η παράσταση

Στο ΕσωΘέατρο ανεβαίνει για πρώτη φορά στην Ελλάδα, το κωμικό διήγημα του Φιοντόρ Ντοστογιέφσκι «Μπόμποκ», με κεντρικό πρόσωπο του έργου τον Ιβάν Ιβάνοβιτς -επονομαζόμενο και Μπόμποκ- συγγραφέα μέτριο, μονόχνωτο και ολίγον αλαφροϊσκιωτο, που ‘χει το συνήθειο να περνά τη ζωή του, άλλοτε χωμένος στα γραπτά του κι άλλοτε περιδιαβαίνοντας τα μνήματα των νεκροταφείων, συγχέοντας το εδώ με το επέκεινα και την πραγματικότητα με την φαντασία. Σύγκρουση, παραδοξότητα κι ανατροπή είναι τα συστατικά της σατιρικής αυτής κωμωδίας.

    Η δραματοποίηση για το θέατρο και η σκηνοθεσία είναι του Τάσου Προύσαλη.
    Το σκηνικό έχει σχεδιαστεί από τον Αντώνη Πάσσαρη
    σε ζωγραφική εκτέλεση του Στράτου Σαραντίδη.
    Τα κοστούμια είναι της Λίτσας Τρωϊάνου.
    Τους φωτισμούς επιμελήθηκε ο Τάκης Ποδαρόπουλος
    και τη μουσική η Ναταλία Τζήμα.
    Οι φωτογραφίες είναι της Αλίνας Λέφα.
    Υπεύθυνος σχεδιασμού επικοινωνίας ο Γιώργος Γεωργιάδης
    και βοηθός σκηνοθέτη η Χρύσα Διαμαντάκη.

Παίζουν οι Τάσος Προύσαλης, Δήμητρα Κόκκορη, Φιλίνη Παναγιωτοπούλου
ενώ αφηγούνται σε διπλή διανομή οι σπουδάστριες του στούντιο Άννα Βακόντιου και Μαρία Ιωάννου.