American Theatre Wing: "So am I confessing to shocking gaps in my theatre knowledge or boasting of unique and often short-lived opportunities in my theatergoing history? After all, the first list is unquestionably distinguished, loaded with classic, while the latter contains a few obscurities, leans towards the 20th century and cites many famous actors.
I’m really just trying to make a point, which is that unless you treat theatergoing as a chore, with a checklist to be completed, you are perfectly likely to miss some of “the big ones” and equally likely to have some singular experiences along the way.
13 comments:
I have never viewed seeing theatre as a "should" (excepting when trying to support friends in a production, which is quite different) for one reason: I have no real income. In order to get truly affordable tickets (not handouts from family or overspending my paltry workstudy pay), the amount of time one must invest was generally too much. I went to undergrad in Philly, so NYC was fairly accessible (though not so much as for the author). But rushing a show is exhausting, especially if your friend's apartment is on the outskirts of Brooklyn. And then there's the weather to consider. I've done it, but you have to make the most of each roundtrip bus ticket, and time is valuable.
Anyway, my point is, I'm happy that when I've spent or splurged on theatre, it's purely out of want, and then only curtailed by cost-benefit analysis. Sometimes, through class, I'd be encouraged or forced to see provocative or wonderful or terrible works of theatre, but beyond that and despite a fairly competitive and pretentious nature, I've never felt that I "should" see a show. And I'd never thought of that until reading this blog post.
So after that very anecdotal response, I'd like to draw attention to one of the sentences I most connected with. It's why I'd rather spend on theatre than see 10 movies instead.
"I am driven to see a great deal of theatre because I continue to love the form and because it is so fleeting; it is not something I can place on a shelf or access via Netflix."
I think this is especially true with theatre majors. It makes sense that we would keep track of the shows we seen and talk to our friends about the shows. At certain point though it sounds like bragging. "I have seen X show directed by X, then I saw X show and X show all in one day!" I have never been a part of this game. Like he says it's not a chore. Even though I greatly appreciate theatre I don't fill my free evenings with plays and musicals to go to. After working on theatre all day sometimes the last thing I want to do is go see it. Theatre should be something you want to see not something you have to check off.
There is always some element of contest in our daily lives it seems. Theatre, especially as a theatre major, does make this seem more relevant. It is sad when we brag about how many shows weve seen or what show we have seen. Ive seen a lot of shows, but they havent been all top notch, "famous" shows, and thats ok. We need to make an emphasis on the quality, not quantity or fame of a show, and what we can take away. It might sound cliche, but what you take away from a performance is the purpose we put on shows, hopefully you dont take away another number to tack on or show to brag about.
It is VERY sad that I have not seen a single production of any of the ten "must-sees" but is redeeming that I have read three of them. I agree with Cassandra that given time and resources I would love to see or produce all off these plays BUT I only see about two plays a year and it is usually because I know someone in the cast. The last play that actually paid money for and went on my own accord was ART at the Pittsburgh Public Theater. The types of show listed in this article are the reason that so many of us love theater yet I am planning to spend some considerable resources in the near future to go see Spiderman: Turn off the Dark!
"I will say that like early investing, an early start at theatergoing leaves you ever richer as the years go by. That said, you and I should both just see what we want to see. It’ll all work out just fine in the end."
What a wonderful attitude towards theater! There's rareley anything I feel I SHOULD see or NEED to see, buy yet again my tastes in theater are a bit odd. Theater is such a personal experience you feel should motivate to see something that ignites that energy in you rather than see something because you feel you should see it. Theater story telling can also be a bit redundant. You don't have to see anything Sophocles has read to feel deep tragedy. Certain types of stories keep retelling themselves. And certain types of moods and forms keep resurfacing. See what you want, see what you like and then you will be seeing what you should be seeing.
Viewing theatre is not a contest. Someone is not a better person because they have seen "more shows" than someone else. Seeing every show doesn't make you more of a "fan" than someone else. Theatre is about being changed by what you see--even if it just makes you happier. There is no contest.
Didn't see Catherine-Zeta Jones in "A Little Night Music"? Neither did I. But life will go on. Didn't see Bernadette as her replacement? Neither did I, but I wish I did. But again, life will go on.
Theatre is not about how many shows you see. It's about seeing what you want and changing for doing so. Sure we'll miss a lot of "the big ones" but theatre is not the be all and end all of life. If we do other things besides theatre we learn more about the world. And should we then see another piece of theatre we can understand it even more.
As cliche as it is, "it's a play, so play." Many forget that theatre is not a chore or something that should consume a life, and that frequent visits to the outside world should be mandatory. Theatre should not be a contest, but instead heavily involved in the world that has nothing to do with theatre, that's what theatre is for. Yes, it is enjoyable for many to fill their weeks with show after show, and with a healthy balance of other subjects, this is fine. But when people compete about how many shows they have seen or read, it becomes pointless. AJ put it very well: it's not about how many shows we see, but what we take from the shows we do get to witness; it is quality, not quantity. When people do indeed lose sight of this, there is never a better time to take a break and step outside of theatre for a little while before returning to it.
I think that what the author says at the end of the article is very important that one should feel lucky to get to see theater in general. Although this is true I also believe that as a theater major, one should have knowledge of certain plays, to at least have a reference for what has come before. For instance, if you are talking about Shakespeare’s tragedies and you have never seen or read Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet, I don't know how you are going to have a frame of reference. So in some sense I believe this means you "must" see some things. But seeing does not mean that they have to be big productions, or cost a lot of money you just have to know something about what some people have chosen to do at some time and why. It can also mean reading the play or watching clips on YouTube. I think without this frame of reference we lose our history and also don't really have a lot to go off of.
I completely agree with what the author is saying. Theatre is a personal experience and you shouldn't see, let alone spend that money on, something you don't really want to go to but you feel like you have to. Not everything interests everyone. Some people only like musicals, some only like seeing Shakespeare. I know many people who count how many plays they've seen of the ones in the back of playbills or try to see everything on broadway. But I find that pointless. I usually don't want to see everything on Broadway. That's great if everything looks really good to you, but don't go because you feel like it's required to be a "good" theatregoer.
I think what this author says about theater not being a chore is a really good point. Do we do theater so we can call ourselves cultured or do we see theater because we like it? When I was in high school I went to see a show that was a "should see" type of show and at intermission I woke up and left. I wasn't having any fun. I wasn't captivated. I wasn't even awake for most of it. Theater doesn't always have to make you laugh out loud but it should be a reward. It should make you glad you went.
I will be the first to admit I am a pretty avid theatregoer. I was very fortunate growing up in New York and having the rush/discount-savvy group of friends I did because it meant I was seeing a lot of theatre for not too much money, and occasionally being privy to a so-called "must-see" performance. However, I always resented those among my friends who would "rack up" shows, actively brag about how they had been at this one performance where something happened, and tell the rest of us how we "totally missed out." I think that every performance I see is unique (this is the very nature of live performance, and I find it to be true even when I see a show more than once), and certainly unless there were 40 of me to attend every broadway show everyday, I would be bound to "miss out" on something "memorable." I agree with the author that a better way to think about it is that if one wants to see theatre and have a "must-see" experience, it's what you make of it.
I've only see two of those "must see pieces," and I think that's okay. I'd like to see all of them. I'd also like to see the second list, but not because I have to in order to be a well-rounded theatre person or to be able to win a "contest" in Purnell. I see theatre because I love theatre. Honestly, what I see often depends on how much money and time I have. And if I am disinterested in a show, I'm not going to see it just to say I did. I won't be going to see Spiderman, even if I might get the chance to say "Oh, I saw the infamous Spiderman," because I just don't care about that show. In fact, I think one of the greatest things about theatre is that anything can happen. You don't always know when a show will take off, and you'll have seen it at its roots. And sometimes, seeing a famous actor just isn't worth a lousy show (as I have heard is the case in The Addams Family).
Even if seeing theatre is your job, it shouldn't be a chore.
This blog post makes a very interesting point. There are many plays that are a part of the classical or Western canon of drama that people just assumed everyone has seen or read. I for one have never read Hamlet. Nor do I intend to. If I can see a play rather than read it, then I will, for plays are meant to be viewed on the stage, not on the page. This blogger has quite a head start on me as far as general theatre viewing is concerned, however. As a technical person, I like seeing shows that are technical. I find them more interesting. But this means that I am less likely to go see a simple straight play than a larger more complex show because I know I won't stay interested. Because a lot of the "classics" are often done so simply, there's a possibility that I may never see them. It sounds horrible, but I know that I can support the arts without forcing myself to go to shows I will find boring. In fact, it's probably better this way!
Post a Comment