Saturday, October 26, 2013
A Litany of Multiple Voices: Notes on Political Theater
HowlRound: To begin this particular musing it is important to say something up front: I am the sort of person who believes that the things I read are written just for me, that they are speaking to me in specific moments of my life. Most recently, I’ve become fixated on a poem by a man named Richard Siken entitled A Litany in Which Certain Things Are Crossed Out. I like its disjointed storytelling and its strong voice, but I also love it for the moment that it entered my life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Wow, there is a lot going on here. I agree with the author mostly, I think that watching someone improvise something under real circumstances is great. This is why so many people love sports. You get to see someone handed a set of rules and then thrown into a circumstance where they have an objective and then have to figure out how to get to that objective. Improve is exciting, you never know what will happen but because it is given some constraints you know that you will be safe and so it just becomes fun to watch the choices people make. I think that theater like this has to have rules that the performers fallow. You can't just say "PERFORM" and have people make something interesting; you have to set up guidelines and expectations that way there is a construct to work with and a lends to view the piece through.
What a wonderfully written article -- I'm struck by the clarity of thought and I think her notions are intriguing. My first thought while reading was indeed ok, well what would make this different from a debate on TV or something like that? I'm glad she included answering the question from last week -- and I'm glad that question was posed -- and I think her response was short and sweet. That "it is more civil because it is more difficult." I thought about this for a while and I see where she's coming from. To have actors and actresses on stage, responding to political stimuli without rehearsal, with just themselves, in front of a live audience and for the purpose of political response…wow, I know I could never do that. There's something about that which makes it so real and refreshing. "They are representing nothing but themselves, and in those performances there is a honesty that, in my opinion, even the most skillful acting cannot touch." This notion of a sort of raw honesty is great. Sometimes theater goes through so many layers -- her idea strips everything down to the bare bones. I don't think this is great for everything, but for this instance it is incredibly intriguing and would give a depth and honesty as she puts it, to political theater that would probably be incredibly stimulating, as well as a breath of fresh air.
This was a fantastic article I really enjoyed reading it an I enjoyed some of the points the author brought up. Just as the author thought everything was meant for them to read I have also found that I internalize everything I read. Even if I don't agree with a point or I don't read a whole article because I don't agree with that point I still take what I read and apply it to my understanding of the world.
Another point I enjoyed about this article was the authors idea of good political theatre. I completely agree that political theatre is not about playing devils advocate with yourself or about willing the debate with a higher stance on the world. I think it is about creating a better understanding about what did and what was occurring. One of my favorite playwrights Emily Mann does just that. She doesn't exactly take a stance, but stages the events. Her political plays are not commentary on the play but instead a reenactment of what occurred. I think this is the part of the idea the author is writing about in regards to putting an actor in front of a crowd with no bubble.
Post a Comment