DC Theatre Scene: I make theatre and I like to sail. My theatrical vocation and my nautical hobby permit me to observe that America’s distorted version of theatre exactly parallels its distorted vision of lighthouses. The distortion is more visible as concerns lighthouses because it leaves artifacts; the flea market in Wallingford, Connecticut (from which I’ve just returned) contains a generous sampling.
16 comments:
I understand the idea that theater no longer highlights dangers, realities, fears, etc., however I do not agree that because not all theater is a history lesson that it has no greater purpose than to entertain. Though theater has because more theatrical and "pretty" over time, the truths in theater still remain. Theater though glamorous, exchanges a message to an audience; on morals, ethical choices, family, love, peace, etc. These messages, though they do not tell you a fact that is written in stone, there is still a valuable message in the story.
The comparison Robert Schneider makes of theatre to the lighthouse is perfectly spot on. While people still love going to the theatre, they tend to forget about it because they are so consumed with the cheaper forms of entertainment found in TV shows or movies. Many people can feel the same connection to a story or issue in a movie as they do in a theatrical production, and since they don't go to the theatre as often, they forget that the important issues or themes are still found in these productions. They instead see theatre as only "pretty" and full of fluff.
I do not fully agree with Robert Schneider because I do believe theatre relays very important messages. It is nice to look at, but that is not theatre's only purpose. Theatre can be considered a distraction, but it is a good distraction from everyday issues people are going through. Theatre is an escape that can actually benefit someone after. There are many great lessons that can be learned from different shows. Some can change a person's perspective on life.
I don't think that Robert Schneider makes a fair or accurate comparison with theatre to a lighthouse. A lighthouse is a tool. And although theatre has used a tool of delivery in the past, it is a piece of art that is being presented. The primary use is entertainment and delivery of a message. And although theatre could be a considered a tool for delivery of a message, but when one goes to see a show or a piece, they do not go in with the intention of receiving a message. Also, in my mind, you cannot touch theatre, it is something you take in then make meaning of it. You cannot do that with a lighthouse.
I disagree with the basic premise of this author. I feel like we have become so caught up in the messages we are trying to send with theatre, that we have forgotten that, at its heart, theatre tells stories. We dismiss any sort of theatre that just tells a story, without some sort of obvious message, as somehow worth less than theatre which has a message. We look at theatre that entertains, that “celebrates good feeling”, as for some reason inferior to theatre with a big message, theatre the audience may not be able to understand. However, stories are important, and even something to entertain can still have a message, even if it isn’t obvious. I think one of the best things, and the most timeless things, about theatre is that its community stories. To me, theatre is about telling and making stories. And storytelling, in any form, will always be useful.
In some ways, we may need stories to help keep us human. To quote one of my favorite books, Hogfather:
”Death: REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
Susan: Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little-
Death: YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
Susan: So we can believe the big ones?
Death: YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
Susan: They're not the same at all!
Death: YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET- AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
Susan: Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point-
[…]
Death: NO. YOU NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?”
Theatre will always be important, because theatre is stories, and stories will always be important. Why else do we still tell them, still remember stories from thousands of years ago?
I think that there is a time and place for all types of theatre. The movie genre consists of Adam Sandler comedies and silly rom-coms, but the possession of shallow "tourist" productions doesn't preclude the genre from also being a genre of sophisticated art and feeling. Theatre is the same way. We can have silly musicals that make us feel happy because sometimes life is happy, and we want to be lost in a life that polished and shined-- a show. However, the existence of peppy happy shallow musicals doesn't change the fact that theatre is and continues to be a conduit of life. Theatre doesn't only exist for existential despair, nor does it only exist for high-flying tap numbers. It exists for both. Saying that theatre is obsolete because fluffy productions exists is like saying that lighthouses are useless because of flowerbeds. What is the harm in making something lovely? Flowers don't dull the light that helps ships locate the shore.
I believe Schneider's assertion that theatre has become "something merely decorative" is unfair. I think it is important to note that the value of theatre really depends upon how much one is willing to invest in it. If someone goes to see a show as a way to kill some time on a Saturday night, then yes, Schneider's assessment is true. But many people (on, off, and behind stage) actively choose to dedicate their life to theatre, and in that regard theatre today is still essentially the "ancient institution of high purpose" Schneider spoke of. Instead of discussing the absolute degradation of theatre into something purely ornamental, I think we should be discussing the broadening spectrum of how people interact with theatre. That interaction, after all, is what truly generates theatre's value and necessity.
I love the comparison between lighthouses and theatre in this article. Agreeably, the importance of lighthouses often goes unrecognized next to their idealized visions. I have fond memories of watching movies as a child about sailing and adventure and lighthouses always arrived at the climax of the film, as a hero, a beacon of hope and salvation for the character in peril.
In the same way, I feel that theatre is the beacon that shines at the numerous climaxes of our own stories. It acts a marker in society, highlighting the current stasis of our collective thinking (RENT came about during the peaking of the AIDS epidemic, Book of Mormon during a time in which we look at religious reform, and Kinky Boots shines now amongst the nations increasing support of the LGBT community).
J
ust like a lighthouse on a stormy night, theatre is the beacon that grounds us to reality. It allows us to view what we think of ourselves, as individuals and as a whole.
I agree with the sense that pretty theatre is no longer necessary. Audiences should be challenged, not placated. Schneider has a point when saying that "Theatre no longer flashes out danger, it celebrates good feeling." This feel-good mentality of the perpetually growing deadly theatre has diminished theatre down to decorative roots. Instead of abandoning the art, however, what can we do to change this aforementioned trend? There is nothing on this earth like live performance; theatre has existed for as long as communication itself. I feel that many mainstream theatre companies may be playing it safe with feel-good shows, much as Hollywood continuously generates the same formula year after year. It is the feeling of familiarity that we must abolish in the theatre if it is to survive as anything more than a decorative art piece. We mustn't abandon the theatre, but rather look at the revolutionary pieces and dangerous pieces and learn from them.
I can't necessarily say I agree with this argument. Powerful theater is still being performed today, and modern playwrights still write powerful theater. We do live in a time where the theater has embraced new technologies as an aide to the spectacle, however, I don't necessarily agree that this detracts from a deeper primal experience, if anything, modern technologies are enhancing the storytelling. Yes, Broadway is swarmed with perhaps more shallow stories, however, we wouldn't be anywhere if Broadway, bringing in huge audiences each night, didn't stay afloat. While the shows may be slightly more shallow, they're the shows that run for 10+ years.
People do not die without theater. I'm sorry, I love this industry, I'm getting a very specialized degree in it, but Schneider is perpetuating his own problem with this comparison. We, as artists, need to first understand that art is a surplus, an extra and a frill. It's great for the soul, raises important societal questions, but on a food/clothing/shelter level, theatre is not included.
The solution for how to save theatre has to involve innovating in ways to make it more accessible to people at large, not blaming our audience for not liking what we want to do. We are providers of a service, and just like every other provider, we have to provide the service our audience wants or they will choose a different service.
My biggest frustration with theatre artists comes when it becomes about their own persona, and not focusing on the needs and feelings of the audience. I do not think that saccharine musicals are the only way to achieve this balance but we as an industry need to come to terms with the fact that theatre as an artform isn't about the artist, it's about the transient interaction between the art and the receivers, and belittling our own audiences is not the way to achieve that.
Robert Schneider is latching on to what theatre used to mean to society. Today, we have so many forms of art and entertainment that are easily accessible to us. Theatre is not at all times the cheapest, most convenient, or even most vital form. However, when considering why it is still valuable, one must also consider that values can change as society evolves. Recently, I have observed theatre being more than just what people do on a Friday night. It helps developing communities, it provides business to smaller communities, and it lends education and opportunity to youth. This summer, I worked in a theatre that was the most profitable business in the small town where it existed. IT there fore brought business to all of the other restaurants and stores in the community. So, no, theatre may not be as central to as many things as it once was, but that does not make it obsolete.
I agree that theatre is has become more a of a luxury, but I do feel that is still necessary. Yes, a lot of theatre is for the public, but there are still plenty of new works that are produced. I want to be part of this profession for the new works rather than redoing mainstream musicals.
It is also still necessary to have artistic enjoyment occasionally even if it is not everyday. Even if I'm not a complete fan of popular shows, I still enjoy them to an extent. People should be able to escape into another "world" when they want, and that is where theatre comes into play.
I think saying that theatre is a history lesson is a huge indication of the ignorance that went into writing this article. I think that there is plenty of new works that are wildly relevant, as well as classic texts that themes are still relevant centuries later. I think that theatre is necessary because art is necessary. People need to express themselves, share their thoughts and intentions with the world. And they shouldn't have to be constrained to other forms to do it. I think the stage being an interactive experience between artists and audience members is also something you can't replicate anywhere else.
this piece was very intriguing right up until the final paragraph. His closing argument that "Theatre’s mission...is not to guarantee fairness or ease of access for its practitioners but to preserve imperiled souls in the world at large," totally lost me. Yes, art is necessary, as an expression of the human condition, so that "lost souls," can derive something from it and be guided along their path, but I would argue that we, as a species of artists, will eventually find something to replace theatre. HIs argument that theatre is life and death simply isn't true. Theatre, and art in general, is not necessary for survival. Art is an invigoration for the audience, it is a "reason why," in life it is not a "method how to survive." Therefore, his assertion that it is life and death is hypocritical when you pair it with his statement that it is not the practitioner's responsibility to make sure that all have equal access to it. It might sound melodramatic, but when you say that not everyone should necessarily have access something that is important as life and death, I question the validitiy of your argument.
Schneider's assertion is one of valid observation that should be considered by theatrical artists and patrons alike. Yes, to some degree a fair percentage of accessible theater in our current time is filled with fluff and crowd pleasers rather than innovative and insightful work that advances the scholarship of theater and promotes new viewpoints and ideas that affect and alter the lives of the audience. To a certain extent Schneider is spot on in his observation of such trends occurring in the theater, however he is too quick to lump all theater together and dismiss it as a "decorative tourist attraction." While a decent portion of produced theater has shifted into that category, there is still many pieces of theater produced around the world that remain true innovative and daring. If anything this new "quaint" form a theater may just be a product of the time, where audiences are more easily attracted to crowd pleasing fluff and distractions similar to the modern fad of reality TV. Maybe this new occurrence in theater is a byproduct of a larger American trend that should first be addressed. Whatever the case may be, Schneider makes a valid point but is too all inclusive in his view.
Post a Comment