Breaking Character: Theatre is always in flux because our world is always in flux and theatre is just an expression of the culture—or reflection, if you want to go cliché about theatre holding up a mirror to society, but then I get fixated on why doesn’t theatre spell all words backwards and show the sun setting in the East like when you take a selfie with an iPhone. But while theatre is always fluidly changing, albeit is slowly, much about it stays the same and some of our most traditional forms of theatre are still enjoyed the world over. If this wasn’t true, we would have tossed Shakespeare to the curb next to Pseudodilotitus many centuries ago.
12 comments:
Theatre is an evolving art forms, like most. Over the past century alone we have seen all things from music breaking up the storyline to telling the story, to being incorporated into plays. Who would've thought actors in dramas would also have to sing?
This article does a nice job of applying the iceberg metaphor to the evolution of theatre. I agree with that article in the respect that we cannot move too fast. But I disagree with the idea of conventional versus new, imaginative theatre. Lets face it, there will always be commercial, big Broadway musicals. However, as we move forward I feel that conventional theatre is being pushed in a more alternative direction. Examples of Fun home, and Hamilton in this article, I feel are weak examples of new theatre. Yes the subject matter is edgy for Broadway but what is so imaginative about the concepts? I think that moving forward theatre has the possibility to go anywhere. Pushing boundaries and not being afraid to fail in the process is how the next generation of thinkers has approach theatre or we will sink without ever hitting the iceberg.
Theatre is possibly the slowest of all evolving art forms, which oftentimes leads to it feeling stuffy or irrelevant. Just the few shows mentioned in this article prove that this is not always true. We must simply recognize that these admittedly monumental steps have not solved the problem.Theatre needs to grow and change, but without continued push and support in that direction, it is just as likely to spring back as to move on forward. For every Fun Home there is also a Gigi, and safe romp is far easier to finance.
The most viable point that this author makes is that theatre cannot be changed by someone who does not know theatre. I have long been a proponent of the idea that every medium is powerful because of WHAT is. Theatre can do what no other medium can, just as film cannot be replaced by television or graphic novels. Each medium is powerful because of its intrinsic nature. Theatre is not at its best when it is trying to be film. It is its best when it is working towards creating art that only theatre can create, with an immediacy of audience. These groundbreaking musicals are great because they are using the intrinsic nature of theatre rather than try to work against it, making irreplaceable pieces of art, that will hopefully start the shift to take theatre in bold, now well supported, directions.
Theater has been around for a very long time. It is one of the oldest art forms, and I think the reason it has been able to sustain itself so well is because of the way it continuously evolves. This article mentions Hamilton, and I think that that is a perfect and very relevant example of theatrical evolution. There is so much more to be done to theater and so much that we haven't touched, however that innovation doesn't necessarily have to be anti-conventionality. There is nothing wrong with Oklahoma, it did fantastically when it was written but it no longer reflects the people who would go see it. Hamilton does. As people evolve, and culture evolves theater does as well and I think that it why it will be an art form that never dies, because as long as there are people there will be a want to share their stories, in a unique way that represents time, and culture.
The adage "reinventing the wheel" come to mind after reading this article, as very few shows, as the author mentions, are successful which which "break out" from theater's mold to try something completely unexplored. Examples such as FUN HOME and HAMILTON are nice anecdotes which show the changing values in our society and diversity which is now becoming more mainstream. Despite the quirks of these two shows which has made audiences take note, it is important to understand what makes them stand out from their peers--they are not trying to alter the performance medium, but merely using different tactics to convey a message, which in itself features unusual elements and themes which feel much more "relevant" and "true to life" than shows of previous generations. This is most likely the secret to their success, being able to take diverse concepts and situations and having audiences react to them on a much more personal level.
There's a very common fuss made over the idea that Broadway is either dying, dead, or decomposing. People frequently use Broadway as a synonym for theatre, as if ticket sales in New York declining signal a coming apocalypse for theatre as a whole. However, regardless of whether or not people want to see Phantom or Wicked, theatre is in the midst of a strong resurgence, one that comes from people longing to feel something again after having been numbed by a combination of social media overdosing, TV and film gluts, and a common apathetic strain running through the youths of today. Theatre that gets the audience involved, forces them to take part in the show, gives them a sense of feeling alive, most for the first time in ages. Sleep no more is something people often hinge on as a bastion of devised theatre, since the audience has to walk around with the cast, but I think the idea can be pushed further. Tasks such as Escape the Room games can be a fusion of theatre and life, if you were stuck in a room with actors playing characters mixed with real people thinking they are in for fun. Relevancy and social commentary isn't what gets people excited. The thought of feeling alive does.
Change in the theatrical world is always slow going because people get comfortable with the way that things are going and because subscribers like to see the same things that they like to see over and over again. That being said, I agree with the article that it is our job to challenge that and to forge ahead anyway. It’s hit and miss sometimes because we do not always do this in the best ways possible and oftentimes end up offending our audiences and tanking a show, but that learning experience brings us to the next great things or a better way of doing the thing we were trying to do in the first place. I really think that media will help us progress in the next generation with theatre as we try to relate more closely to Gen X and tie into their way of thinking and living while still presenting them with the world in which we live.
Theatre is constantly changing because if it stayed the same people would get bored. There are only so many shows that can be written about the same love story or typical musical topic. There needs to be new and exciting things to draw in a different audience and also keep the typical theatre audience still interested. Hamilton and Fun Home are both very popular because they are different and they deal with popular issues. Fun Home is the first show about a gay woman and her gay father, which has drawn in a lot of people that may or may not have been into theatre before. Change is sometimes a scary thing, but in the long run it helps a culture grow and improve over time. It is difficult to come up with something new and different, but those out of the box crazy ideas are usually what makes a big difference in something.
While I have been thinking a lot lately about how theater changes and what theater may or may not evolve into by the time we are working theater adults in the professional world, I haven’t thought too much about the pace of that change, or if that change is moving too slowly. While Fun Home and Hamilton are both great examples of the breaking of boundaries of theater and the new ideas and topics that are being expressed, I don’t know if I would label them as examples of a new kind of theater more than I would label them as theater that explores new ideas, if that makes sense. While I can’t express how much I appreciate musicals which approach harsh subjects such as suicide, and delve into complex issues of race and sexuality, part of me feels like the definition of “new” theater won’t ever necessarily be “mainstream”, and I think that might be okay. I’m looking forward to seeing what will be considered “boundary breaking” theater in a few years.
While I agree that the current movements occurring on Broadway are inherently good for the development of theatre, usical theatre, and representation for typically unrepresented groups, these are all second tot he thing that most theatre does not seek to do: ingite community. In Performance studies, communitas is the latin word for the experience of becoming a community through a shared experience. Theatre's primary function should, in my opinion, always be this. Second to that is imbuing communitas with a cultural and social awareness and light-shedding on issues that need to be discussed, and will only be able to be discussed if communitas is achieved first. Modern Broadway does not do this, and it often does not seem to seek to do this. Small theatre companies often do not achieve it, for the lack of imagination in the creation of the art causes the audience, unless the actors are strong enough that the empathy is present from the start, to disengage and leave with the memory of a few great images and no longstanding impact. Articles such as this one ought to be fighting for greater imagination in service of communitas in our work, with the multi-represenational and cultural movements/social awareness as a close second for importance. With these aspects put together, our theatre will be invigorated.
This is a very interesting article. I do believe at times that there is no such thing as originality anymore just because everything that can be done has already usually been done. The social consciousness has a wonderful way of shaping the overarching themes found in theatre (for example, "Hamilton") and I do think that history repeats itself. Art in all mediums is unpredictable and can turn out ugly, but thank goodness those issues are usually resolved on their own. Also coming from high school theatre, there were only ever traditional shows with traditional scenery and flats. I never knew how to break the rules of scenery and that it was possible until coming to CMU in addition to seeing more experimental theatre this year. I think experimental theatre is a wonderful category of theatre that really goes on to explore the aspects that can't be expressed with dialogue. I, for one, hope that more types of experimental theatre make its way to the main stage because often times, there's a stigma of it being "strange" or "obnoxiously avant garde" and that's the opposite of what it should be.
The world takes time to change, and the theatre community is no different. In history there are events that we continue to refer back to and the same will be in true in theater. The author Branden Huldeen is right, the heart of theater can’t change, the core of what we do shouldn’t change. The type of theater we as both part of the theater community and theatre goes, can choose to do certain types of theater, wether musicals, plays, opera, performance art, at the core it all drives to tell a story or message to its audience. There will always be the ‘classics’ and people should continue to see them, and there will always be new productions being created. New pieces will come and do normally mimic the tone of the current culture, but in time thats how we as theater artisans capture moments in time and hope they are able to continue for a long time to come.
This article lacks a thesis, makes sweeping, weightless generalizations, and is frankly self-indulgent to the extreme. I understand that he works for a publishing company in the field of new musicals, but to claim that theater is slow to change when you work within a section of theater that literally did not exist 120 years ago is pretty ridiculous. While both Hamilton and Fun Home are revolutionary in the critical and financial success that they've both had, I think it's unfair to look at Broadway as the standard for the theater that is being produced about ordinary people. Commercial theater exists to make money, and until recently, the people with the money wanted to see stories about themselves. The fact that Broadway has been receptive to producing work like Fun Home and Hamilton is far more a function of the nature of audience taste changing than a previous lack of diverse work being written. This has nothing to do with a change in what people are writing about but a change in what Broadway producers are willing to take a chance on, which makes the author's point pretty meaningless.
Post a Comment