Theater and Theatre
I got to the BCC classroom early yesterday. I was meeting Rachel ahead of time for a coffee, chat, and to set up for her first class. I was the first to arrive, had a quick breakfast sandwich, and started collapsing tables and stacking chairs transforming a technical classroom into an artistic space. Afterwards, as I was leaving half-way through the class for rehearsal I was musing over it.
By nature I claim to be a slob. In a theater I clean up, set up, rearrange, strike items that could create a hazard, inspect the physical facility, and so on. A preflight. It feels natural.
I looked up the etymology and usage for theatre and theater. I had three preconceptions, and they all have their roots and proponents. The first being they are no more than variations of the same word. BORING!
The second assigns the 'coarse' German spelling "theater" to endeavors and places like movie houses and the 'refined' French spelling "theatre" for more artistic endeavours and places like opera, ballet, and drama. A pretentious distinction and not useful for real people. What would you call variety shows or vaudeville? Eighty years ago theater, but now theatre? When and where do you draw the line? Who cares besides shallow people feigning depth?
This leads to the distinction I prefer. More useful, and non-judgmental. Theater refers to the facility, and theatre refers to the art form or production company. Another thing I saw ascribed to theatre in this context really jazzed me. The facility, cast/crew, and audience. I believe good theatre to be a fusion.
When the audience forgets to silence phones and pagers is it because they're asses or because the house manager didn't remember or consider reminding them? If a show is dead is it because the audience is not present, or the cast is not present? If the lighting or sound is jarring is it because the audience is being judgmental, because the performance isn't drawing them in, or because the lights and sound cues are crappy? If the audience hates the show are they being close minded, did the marketing mislead them, or is the show itself hateful? Whether you're audience, cast, director, or usher, ask yourself these questions, because we are all essential to the magical creation. Real magic and creation on this scale are not solo efforts.
I remember a show which greatly impressed and disappointed me. Several years ago Peter Brook's Hamlet made it's American debut in Seattle. Brilliant performances and brilliant, sharp direction. The seats were exceedingly uncomfortable, there was no intermission, and the cuts were too deep. On the way out of the theater almost all the people I overheard were discussing how much the wretched folding chairs made their tails and backs hurt, or how they were upset Laertes speech to his son, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be;..." was cut.
A tremendous production in many ways. The international cast did a tremendous job, there was no doubt about their intentions, they knew, understood, and lived the text. So, despite many different accents I had no trouble understanding, and was drawn into the story immediately. I was angry and frustrated during the last 30-45 minutes of the play because the intense discomfort was demanding most of my attention -- it is my strongest memory of the production today. An incredible disservice to the cast as well. I would lay responsibility at the feet of the director, and possibly the production manager.
The whole idea of running a long show without break is incredibly arrogant and disrespectful to your audience. In Shakespeare's time theatre was like the cinema or a fair, so intermissions weren't needed -- people could come and go as they wanted. Thus dies the historical justification. The more popular rationalization is even worse. "It breaks the energy of the performance." You can't make the audience feel like they are in a torture chamber and expect it to be good for the energy and flow of the show. A few people will try to remember why they liked the first part of the show, the rest simply hating the whole. It is a specious argument at best. If an actor can't endure an intermission, it's time to recast.
I followed a tangent here, which went from respecting the theater, to respecting the audience, and honoring the cast and crew. Maybe it is what makes a very good show a transcendental experience, a multi-mutual effort tying all the strands into a web connecting everyone. It's a clumsy description, which for me starts from preparing the self and the space, all the way to thanking the audience. Too many thoughts for prose, so today's distillation...
Theatre
Weaving swelling hearts
infinite, mundane, magic
flashes etch the soul
By nature I claim to be a slob. In a theater I clean up, set up, rearrange, strike items that could create a hazard, inspect the physical facility, and so on. A preflight. It feels natural.
I looked up the etymology and usage for theatre and theater. I had three preconceptions, and they all have their roots and proponents. The first being they are no more than variations of the same word. BORING!
The second assigns the 'coarse' German spelling "theater" to endeavors and places like movie houses and the 'refined' French spelling "theatre" for more artistic endeavours and places like opera, ballet, and drama. A pretentious distinction and not useful for real people. What would you call variety shows or vaudeville? Eighty years ago theater, but now theatre? When and where do you draw the line? Who cares besides shallow people feigning depth?
This leads to the distinction I prefer. More useful, and non-judgmental. Theater refers to the facility, and theatre refers to the art form or production company. Another thing I saw ascribed to theatre in this context really jazzed me. The facility, cast/crew, and audience. I believe good theatre to be a fusion.
When the audience forgets to silence phones and pagers is it because they're asses or because the house manager didn't remember or consider reminding them? If a show is dead is it because the audience is not present, or the cast is not present? If the lighting or sound is jarring is it because the audience is being judgmental, because the performance isn't drawing them in, or because the lights and sound cues are crappy? If the audience hates the show are they being close minded, did the marketing mislead them, or is the show itself hateful? Whether you're audience, cast, director, or usher, ask yourself these questions, because we are all essential to the magical creation. Real magic and creation on this scale are not solo efforts.
I remember a show which greatly impressed and disappointed me. Several years ago Peter Brook's Hamlet made it's American debut in Seattle. Brilliant performances and brilliant, sharp direction. The seats were exceedingly uncomfortable, there was no intermission, and the cuts were too deep. On the way out of the theater almost all the people I overheard were discussing how much the wretched folding chairs made their tails and backs hurt, or how they were upset Laertes speech to his son, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be;..." was cut.
A tremendous production in many ways. The international cast did a tremendous job, there was no doubt about their intentions, they knew, understood, and lived the text. So, despite many different accents I had no trouble understanding, and was drawn into the story immediately. I was angry and frustrated during the last 30-45 minutes of the play because the intense discomfort was demanding most of my attention -- it is my strongest memory of the production today. An incredible disservice to the cast as well. I would lay responsibility at the feet of the director, and possibly the production manager.
The whole idea of running a long show without break is incredibly arrogant and disrespectful to your audience. In Shakespeare's time theatre was like the cinema or a fair, so intermissions weren't needed -- people could come and go as they wanted. Thus dies the historical justification. The more popular rationalization is even worse. "It breaks the energy of the performance." You can't make the audience feel like they are in a torture chamber and expect it to be good for the energy and flow of the show. A few people will try to remember why they liked the first part of the show, the rest simply hating the whole. It is a specious argument at best. If an actor can't endure an intermission, it's time to recast.
I followed a tangent here, which went from respecting the theater, to respecting the audience, and honoring the cast and crew. Maybe it is what makes a very good show a transcendental experience, a multi-mutual effort tying all the strands into a web connecting everyone. It's a clumsy description, which for me starts from preparing the self and the space, all the way to thanking the audience. Too many thoughts for prose, so today's distillation...
Theatre
Weaving swelling hearts
infinite, mundane, magic
flashes etch the soul
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home