Friday, April 01, 2011
Why are British and American theatre audiences so different?
guardian.co.uk: "As I left rehearsal for my new play the other day, I had a very strange feeling. As I navigated Manhattan's grid from midtown west to my apartment on the Lower East Side, it dawned on me: it was strange to be premiering a play in New York instead of London. Although my last two plays, Dying City and Now or Later, both got their starts at the Royal Court, two of my other six plays have premiered in New York. I recognised the obvious differences back then, in 2005 and 2002: the longer preview period in New York (up to a month before critics come), my hometown's older audiences and steeper ticket prices, the prevalence of a subscription or membership model in our big theatres versus what happens in London.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I've never before considered the idea that British and American theatre audiences may be substantively different. Maybe it's that we both speak the same language, share much of a common history and culture. Why would we differ on theatre? But perhaps there is a divide here, besides the atlantic ocean.
I'd think that the comment that American audiences are more visual, and perhaps British are more verbal, is probably accurate, and a key comment. And I think we all feel that pressure today to make theatre in 90 minutes. Distill it. Cut it down. Why run it long? Is it short attention spans? Is it that Hollywood, movie, fast cutting action?
I cannot speak to British audience's views, but this article does make sense to me: the amount of input that Americans receive here, i.e., our increasing/changing exposure to different media types, would likely inform the direction in which theatre goes, whereas Mr. Shinn seems to imply that the British enjoy the tradition of theatre more. We also exist in a society where people are not inclined to filter or surpress there reactions, and in the hallways at CMU opinions about upcoming pieces proliferate plenty prior to performances.
Similarly to this article, there was a presentation on the differences between theatre here and across the pond from a sound designer's perspective, where once again there are a lot of differences that one wouldn't expect.
The difference between british and american audiences is huge. its easily seen in just comparing british comedy and american comedy, one comes across as horrific to the other and the opposite find it funny. you see this also in many foreign changes in performance art. what is popular in one country is strange and sometimes vile to others . its all about culture in many ways , it involves history and upbringing. even if you speak the same language you dont necessarily always mean the same thing by it. it really is a good study on the variations on culture and art in many ways is in the center of those cultural variations.
The difference is absolutely in our cultural upbringings, and I refuse to believe that Shinn didn't expect these differences. Although both cultures are visual cultures, they are visual in very different ways. This is most clearly seen in film, where, in general, American visuals in film are big and fast, while in Europe, the camera tends to move about much less often. There are definitely other differences, including the fact that we have simply watched different types of entertainment as children and have literally been brought up differently. These differences will never go away.
I think this article is completely true. Even if you can't identify then there are differences in perception based on culture. I think the things did point out are true especially the things about making things shorter or faster. It is common belief that Americans want everything faster than their tradition British counterparts. But, sometimes I feel that theater is to rushed or to cut down. I think it is more not what we want but what we expect as cultures. I think the British treat theater as much more of a cultural experience, i think in some ways they expect to be challenged where most Americans expect to be entertained. Not that either would think the other approach is bad they just my not be prepared for it. This is one of the reasons I like live theater, because the audience is so much a part of it. The show should always be tailored to the audience, and it is nice to see that as a playwright Shinn considers these things.
Post a Comment