Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Fringe theatre is too conventional
guardian.co.uk: "What does the term 'fringe theatre' mean now? Is it to do with venue size? The sort of work programmed? The cost of tickets? Aesthetic choices? Or is it none of the above? I only ask because this weekend Time Out sent me to two 'fringe theatres' - The Finborough and The Courtyard - to see one piece of new writing and one Shakespeare play."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"Not that there's anything wrong with that, per se, but it is nevertheless baffling. The fringe grew up to provide space for new and experimental forms of work; theatre that could not be staged under the nose of the Lord Chamberlain; theatre that challenged the status quo; theatre that asked unpalatable questions of society; theatre that made aesthetic choices that outraged audiences - disquieting theatre; disruptive theatre."
I participated in the Scotland Fringe Festival in 2006 and I think that it is something that is necessary for theatre to provide these types of spaces for theatrical work. I loved being apart of this type of "theatre" and I think it is beneficial to the arts.
I never really got the whole fringe thing, and this article really didn't help. It neither established what it was or what it became, okay it did, but not well. Normally with stuff that I call fringe, people like to cut it from carpets or shirts. If it's just cheap theatre, count me out.
Post a Comment