The Clyde Fitch Report: “A social construct means we made it up, and an institution is a social construct that has survived long enough that it doesn’t strike people as strange. That doesn’t mean we can’t change them, it’s just difficult.” This was the reply given by a sociology student who was asked to explain social constructs and institutions as simply as possible. It is simple, indeed, but it rings true, doesn’t it? Don’t we all wish, at least on some level, that we could change the way things are for the better? It seems an impossible task, however. Who could possibly change the way things are? Only the Greats ever do or have, right?
4 comments:
Orson Welles, one of the most prominent content makers of the 20th century, is a true authority on what pushing the boundaries of what we expect out of the media we consume can be. Citizen Kane is widely regarded as one of the best films of our time, if for no other reason that every single part fo that film included things that had never been seen in film, such as the use of music to score important beats in the story and the use of deep focus so that every single item can be seen in the frame, much like reality. The idea of dangerous theatre isn't necessarily that which puts the audience in danger, but rather theatre that challenges the idea of what theatre can be, which certain audience members might not be prepared for, and if they are conservative in their views, will ultimately prompt them tog et up and leave. The people that stay, though, see their views on what a piece can be changed forever. Wanting to galvanize the audience is something that we as a society lost after Welles and have only picked up again recently, as devised theatre sees a slow revival. Controversy is that which fuels discussion, and Cats is anything but controversial. Theatre is seeing a shift towards that which is meant to confuse and challenge, and the art is better for it.
Thanks, Orson.
This article is discussing an extremely basic concept, one that thousands of people and artists could understand, and yet such a small amount of people who call themselves creative would even think about attempting something like this. Going back to the quote that began the article, about social constructs, we actually need to recreate the social construct that surrounds the title of “artist.” We need to make the word artist go hand in hand with ideas of revolution, ingenuity, and violent radicalism. I think the idea of a commonplace piece of theatre is more dangerous than the idea of changing Shakespeare’s language to make it more accessible (cough cough, last week’s most popular article to comment on.) Unlike this article, I want to focus one particular piece of Orson Welles’ work, his War of the Worlds broadcast. Welles’ truly showed the world what a visionary he was. He switched mediums, he switched to a completely different art form just so he could cause a real reaction and it worked. I think about that ingenuity all the time and I want to produce something like every time I think about it.
Pushing the boundaries is only as successful as people will allow it to be. For this kind of theatrical revolution to take place, it would have to occur in a place where the audiences are both open to new ideas and tired of the same old ones. While places like New York or Boston seem like dynamic cities overflowing with brilliant minds, I think it would be more interesting to think of cities in the South or the Mid-West where there are both hardcore traditionalists and a small but growing group of people tired of their old ways. Obviously the change would have to be gradual but steady so as not to alienate the current majority but slowly introduce new ideas. Imagine if theaters across Tennessee or Indiana supplemented their usual season with one or two more provocative or thought-provoking shows, slowly cultivating a generation of theater-goers who went not just for the traditional musicals and productions of A Christmas Carol but also for the shocking new plays that made them think.
I think theatre artists often run into trouble when we narrow our focus to the idea that art is meant to reflect life. Yes, this is true. And it is becoming increasingly necessary that production companies find diverse scripts and casts with which to reflect our shifting world. But if all we do is reflect that world as it is, how can we hope to stir change in it? What is essential then is that we dramatize that world, that we show it in a heightened state of what could be in order to stir audiences toward action. We must replace our pristine glass with a carnival mirror if we are ever to illustrate the complex and flawed nature of reality. By doing so, we can still give audiences what they come to theatre for - that relatable sense of watching their own lives play out in front of them. Even better, we can use the fantastical to make that relatability a little more alarming, a little more remarkable. As Cesar Cruz said, "Art is meant to comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable." Let's spark change while we're at it.
Post a Comment