BBC News: Audiences have been walking out of the Royal Shakespeare Company's production of Marat/Sade, which features scenes of nudity and torture. At one preview show, 80 theatregoers left the show at the interval. The RSC says that number was unusually high. According to a spokeswoman, "only four or five" walked out on Sunday.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Marat/Sade: Audiences walk out of 'perverse' RSC show
BBC News: Audiences have been walking out of the Royal Shakespeare Company's production of Marat/Sade, which features scenes of nudity and torture. At one preview show, 80 theatregoers left the show at the interval. The RSC says that number was unusually high. According to a spokeswoman, "only four or five" walked out on Sunday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Given that the audiences were warned about the said explicit content, it's surprising to me that 80 members walked out of a performance. They knew what they were getting into. And the director's defense is totally valid, that flipping around TV channels at night would provide the same sort of explicit content even more readily accessible to viewers than a play would be. Any CSI or Criminal Minds or whatever similar series seems like it would be much more violent or disturbing. This raises interesting questions though, about our relationship to live theater performance. Possibly seeing it enacted in real life makes you more aware of yourself and more uncomfortable that your patronage is supposedly condoning this sort of thing.
The last sentence of this article sums up what I was thinking the entire time I was reading it, "...it is pretty much doing what you expect." It shouldn't be a surprise, to those who know the story of Marat/Sade, that the visual representation of that story is going to be gross and disturbing. I was glad that this article, while being about the number of walkouts and the amount of perturbing material within the play, did not seem to be at all apologetic of the fact, and instead the impression that I got from the article was that it was a warning for those that may not be familiar with the production, as it would be quite a shock to walk into this play without knowing the story.
It seems to me that if people had been fully warned (which they were) they shouldn't have been so surprised at the content of the show. Some people claimed it was because of the political message that they walked out. I don't think anyone should stop watching a performance just because they don't agree with what it is saying. The story behind the play seems to be a very deep one and one that cannot be portrayed otherwise. People should let the violence and uncomfortableness affect them as the playwright and director intended it to rather than giving up on the play and leaving because it is so shocking.
Guess what, folks; sometimes Art isn't comfortable and sometimes you can't just change the channel. Art should be engaging and sometimes the best way of doing that is shock its audience [tasers optional]. "ART IS SHIT! EVERYTHING IS ART!!!!!!"
As a few posters have already said, if the audience knew what was coming then why would they have any reason to complain? If it's a performance designed to be shocking then where is the surprise that people would be shocked? They mentioned that the number walking out in the one performance was higher than normal, I would wonder if that was a matter of following the herd once a few started to go. I've seen some rather shocking performances over the years, but rarely anything that would make me want to leave.
It seems to me that if this same content were to be presented in a different medium, like on TV, audience reactions would not be so drastic. You can watch TV in the privacy of your own home without pressures from people around you to react a certain way to explicit and difficult material. You can also change the channel or sometimes pause it. Being in a theater forces you to focus on what's happening on stage and follow the story as it progresses - taking you out of control of what you're watching. I understand why TV can be more graphic and shows can get away with it. Although, there are many groups that protest graphic TV shows - but that's less visible (and more often ignored) than audience members actively leaving a theater. What I'm wondering is how movies/films also seem to get away with graphic material. Seeing a movie at the cinema is similar in that you have no control of what you're seeing and you're surrounded by people. It may have to do with the general expectation for and acceptance of violence and nudity on screen, despite an explicit warning given at this show. Having live actors may just make it too real for many theater goers. It makes it harder to remove yourself from what you're watching.
Its interesting. I think its okay that people are walking out. Maybe the point was to "... constantly challenge both dramatic conventions and audience composure". It shows that people are thinking about the message enough to react about it.
And as far as the warnings go, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink it. If its too disturbing for some people they should have taken the warnings to heart. The theater made enough warnings.
Heard about this on NPR and immediately thought, "Good. It's about time."
I'm no dramaturg but I do have a strong belief that what makes theater so powerful and intoxicating is the communal energy that exists between spectator and audience. Often times this aspect is overlooked or forgotten and theater becomes dull and boring. Granted, there are more than one way to connect with an audience. A musical number can generate this energy just as much as something shocking. But the energy has the same conductors.
Read Marat/Sade years ago and was in a production of it as well. Something I remember studying and focusing on is the author's orginal intent to tap into this energy. (Peter Brook's film version famously permanently installed a piece of bar grated in front of the camera to try to alienate cinema audiences.) If people are being shocked and walking out, then this production sounds like a very strong catalyst for that communal energy.
There is the question of intent, which a lot of the other comments speak to. 30 people per night aren't walking out on a pornographic production of Glass Menagerie. It's a play about the Marquis de Sade directing a political play using perverts and mental patients as actors. There's a form content fushion there. This production should be shocking because it is shocking. If the theater looses that energy in a production of Marat/Sade, then we're in trouble. So, "Good."
This brings up the issue of what is going "too far" with theatre. I haven't seen the production, so I can't comment on if it was just shock for shock value's sake, but I don't fully agree with the audience's reaction. If you don't like it, fine. But to say that it was "filth" might be going to far. Did these extremely graphic devices help to further the show? If so, then does it matter if it's "too graphic"? If it helps to tell the story, then go for it.
It could all be for shock value--I don't know. I'd like to go see the production to find out for myself.
I think it's really interesting that so many people walk out of this show even though they are given a warning about its explicit content. I think that we throw around the term "explicit content" so much in theatre now, that people no longer take it seriously since a lot of the times even if they say there is explicit content in a show, it is often not that inappropriate based on most people's standards. I think that it is important for theatre to shock people, if there are no productions that are shocking audience members, I say we are not doing our jobs.
Post a Comment