Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
I've never really understood shock theater. It always seemed like it was the attention grabbing form of theater that rather then be genuinely good brought up issues that kept people interested because they were uncomfortable with it. Now, if I wanted to feel uncomfortable while watching something, I'd rent a movie like The Hills Have Eyes or watch a Michael Moore movie. The very nature of theater just doesn't allow for a lot of really weird or wrong things to happen, which was what I always thought shock theater was all about.
I guess I also never really considered theatre to be shocking. I always found the productions to be thought provoking, but never shocking. As an audience member, the end to a story is many times already known, so shock just doesn't seem to be a part of it. The real thing is the conversation created after seeing a production.
I agree with Katherine, I have never found a play (that is, the story) to be shocking. I have found an interpretation to be surprising, but because there are only so many shows out there, one can't be shocked at the stories performed. Interpretations can be novel, designs can be groundbreaking, but shocking is not an adjective that I associate with theater. The goal is not to be surprised, but to be provoked in thought and challenged in your perceptions.
I think plays can still be shocking, but they have to do so in new ways. America can't be surprised by sex, because media talks about it so much. Violence however, is very rarely addressed in a meaningful honest way. If modern theatre dared to look really honestly at poverty and homelessness, or violence in military situations, or human rights in the third world, people would be shocked. However, it's not trendy (and might not be effective) to shock people in these ways. As far as I'm concerned, purely as an audience member, theatre is worth my time if it shows me a perspective I'm unfamiliar with. It doesn't need to shock me to do this. Many shows have shocked me but not given me a new perspective. I don't think it's so much a problem that so few shows are shocking, as it is that so many shows try to be.
This idea of "shock" in theatre is very confusing. While a situation can be shocking, there is very little now that a modern audience has not seen. Furthermore, while an interpretation can invoke thought, I believe that "shock" should never be the goal of theatre.
I agree with what everyone has said. I've never really considered theater to be shocking, sometimes plot twists can be suprising, but not really shocking. I don;t think you go to the theater to be shocked, I think you go to enjoy the experience and see something beautiful, and if there are suprises there, well great.
6 comments:
I've never really understood shock theater. It always seemed like it was the attention grabbing form of theater that rather then be genuinely good brought up issues that kept people interested because they were uncomfortable with it. Now, if I wanted to feel uncomfortable while watching something, I'd rent a movie like The Hills Have Eyes or watch a Michael Moore movie. The very nature of theater just doesn't allow for a lot of really weird or wrong things to happen, which was what I always thought shock theater was all about.
I guess I also never really considered theatre to be shocking. I always found the productions to be thought provoking, but never shocking. As an audience member, the end to a story is many times already known, so shock just doesn't seem to be a part of it. The real thing is the conversation created after seeing a production.
I agree with Katherine, I have never found a play (that is, the story) to be shocking. I have found an interpretation to be surprising, but because there are only so many shows out there, one can't be shocked at the stories performed. Interpretations can be novel, designs can be groundbreaking, but shocking is not an adjective that I associate with theater. The goal is not to be surprised, but to be provoked in thought and challenged in your perceptions.
I think plays can still be shocking, but they have to do so in new ways. America can't be surprised by sex, because media talks about it so much. Violence however, is very rarely addressed in a meaningful honest way. If modern theatre dared to look really honestly at poverty and homelessness, or violence in military situations, or human rights in the third world, people would be shocked. However, it's not trendy (and might not be effective) to shock people in these ways. As far as I'm concerned, purely as an audience member, theatre is worth my time if it shows me a perspective I'm unfamiliar with. It doesn't need to shock me to do this. Many shows have shocked me but not given me a new perspective. I don't think it's so much a problem that so few shows are shocking, as it is that so many shows try to be.
This idea of "shock" in theatre is very confusing. While a situation can be shocking, there is very little now that a modern audience has not seen. Furthermore, while an interpretation can invoke thought, I believe that "shock" should never be the goal of theatre.
I agree with what everyone has said. I've never really considered theater to be shocking, sometimes plot twists can be suprising, but not really shocking. I don;t think you go to the theater to be shocked, I think you go to enjoy the experience and see something beautiful, and if there are suprises there, well great.
Post a Comment