Thursday, August 28, 2008
Why amateur no longer means amateurish
guardian.co.uk: "In the past month I've seen two productions of Romeo and Juliet, one of which was intelligent and exciting while the other seemed flawed and poorly executed. Nothing strange there, you might think. Except that the better of the two was the work of unpaid amateurs while the other was a professional production."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The most important point this article makes between comparing amateur and professionals is that "the important thing is to never reach the point where you stop learning your craft". I think one of the reasons why some so called amateurs are some of the great contributors to their art is that they always want to learn more. With professionals the idea is that you know almost all their is to know and that you have an experience. So they don't look for new things to learn. In this field that mentality doesn't push limits and doesn't allow an individual to have a influence in the theatre world.
My reaction to this article is more to question what "amateur" really means in context to theater. I know there are professional theaters, but thats more of just a label in my view then anything else. Shouldn't theater be more about just how good the plays performed are rather then who's performing in it?
I have had this experience more than once, and in my opinion the great contrast between theatre production often stems from the way that the people involved in a production interact. Theatre is not always about experience, especially the experience of individuals but rather about the combined knowledge of the people involved in a production. The perfect combination of people can often achieve great things.
Post a Comment