Theatre | The Guardian: It’s seven months since I shut my last show – and most theatres are still completely dark. It’s the longest prolonged closure since the days of Samuel Pepys. Theatre has endured war, riots, depression and, yes, even disease. Its absence is damaging this country and doing harm to the mental health of its people, and I’m determined to do anything I can to help bring it back.
9 comments:
First, I don’t know if this article actually does what the title promises. It seems like Friedman’s “cure for theatre” is to bring in-person performances back – but it's not like we can snap our fingers and do that. I guess she offers up her new producing endeavors, but ends the article with how arts lose their value when the social aspect of events is taken away.
I guess the question that I have after reading this piece is why are socially distant theatre models financially unsustainable? I don’t know how these models are being structured, but I think it would be foolish to try and just shove a regular theatre model into this digital or distant shape. I think this pandemic is a good time to rethink how the theatre industry is financially structured. Artists aren’t paid in a sustainable way normally, and this pandemic has just highlighted that. I’ve seen a few articles about theatres creating more permanent artist positions to help with that, which I think is a good start.
I have to agree 100% with Katie. To me this article reads a fluff piece for sure. It basically has three sections:
1) Theatre is necessary for us to be social creatures and right now it is more important than ever.
2) Doing theatre right now is not cost-effective but it must be done for the greater good of society.
3) I am going to be doing a show soon, let me promo my show!
People need the arts and they are more successful when they are enjoyed as groups. Theatre HAS survived so many world events including disease (glossing over the fact that during the last outbreak all theatre was shut down for safety as it is right now). Theatre is always changing to meet the needs of the times and it is doing so again.
I found it hard to understand the idea of a “cure” for theater when I read the title of this article, and I’m not sure the article itself answered my questions. There is no doubt in my mind that art and theater benefit people’s well being and mental health, that it creates beauty and community. However, Friedman’s cure, as other people have pointed out in the comments, seems to be bringing back theater full scale like it was pre-COVID. That doesn’t happen because someone wants it to- we all want our lives and our art to come back to its fullest potential, but that isn’t safe for anyone right now. Across the globe, we are still dealing with a pandemic that has killed countless people. I think that the writing and creative development that has been happening during quarantine is going to, and already has, created some wonderful works that I hope to see produced on stages for full audiences one day. But that day is not now.
Whenever I read pieces like this, discussing the critical role that theatre plays in economic and social ecosystems, I wonder if this information has any significant impact outside the echo chamber. As the author mentions, there are many clear data points demonstrating the quantifiable value of the arts, and yet governmental funding for the arts keeps shrinking. The title of the article suggests that the author has a solution to the current theatre crisis, but I think that I may have missed the point. Either that or the solution to not being able to do theatre is to find ways to do it anyway--with a particular emphasis on getting the necessary funds to present socially distanced in-person productions. It occurs to me that the social benefits Friedman argues for may not be adequately substituted for with reduced audience sizes; certainly, those few who can get in the room can benefit, but there are so many people who won’t be able to access those spaces. I am so glad that theatre is happening in some places, but I can’t help feeling that we need a tool to improve access to that shared experience.
The cure for theatre right now is... that we need theatre. At least, that's what I've gathered from Friedman. I think, like many people in the industry, Friedman is frustrated by what this pandemic has taken away from us, and may also be disheartened by how some people do not realize how badly we need theatre. So, under the pretense of having a cure to everything that was lost, they decided to hit on the importance and power of theatre and how the industry's decline has affected people. Which is interesting because to me, her tone and use of words made it sound as though she was implying the people's lack of joy was because there's no theatre... hmm. While all of this is valid to a certain extent, I'm not sure that this was effective. Now more than ever, we all need positivity and we all need to figure this out. Most importantly, we need to work together with the rest of the world to fight against all that's bringing us down.
I understand the Friedman is upset and is trying to get his art back in action, but I think he is ignoring one very important thing: the reason why theater shut down is because of a PANDEMIC. He says that theater is vital for our mental health, but I think he means for his. There are plenty of people who have never watched or is interested in theater, and truth be told, if you aren't in the industry, even if you are a huge fan, your mental health will be fine without theater. Even in the industry, people will be okay. The concern for them is having a job or not. I found this article to be quite selfish. Especially when in the brief moment he does mention the pandemic (indirectly might I add, he said "the current situation of social distancing") he isn't realizing that that isn't something we can just bypass. He says that the intimacy of the theater is an important role, but he is completely forgetting science?? I understand his struggle and I understand his issues artistically and financially, and though saving theater is important the health of the audience and performers are more important. Instead I think people like Friedman should concentrate on ways to perform and express their art given the circumstances. Find other ways, rather than wait for the pandemic to be over (cuz then the industry is really screwed) or flat out pretending it doesn't exist.
This article stuck out to be because I too want to see the “cure” for theatre- I want to desperately get back to the part of living and working, creating theatre that brings people together, makes audiences laugh and cry, and get back into doing something that I was really unsure I loved so much until it was gone. As Friedman says, we are social creatures who need each other- and right now we need to feel together more than ever before in our lifetime. She also raises an important point: audiences need an escape that can’t only come in the form of Netflix and Youtube. “Medicine saves lives, but culture makes life worth living.” Her mindset is realistic, but solution oriented and optimistic in a way that so many are not right now. I appreciate her determination to create art during this time and her plans to get people have full belly laughter again.
This article was disappointing in that no new ideas were mentioned. Friedman simply suggested the same thing we’ve been thinking, but we know isn’t feasible: returning to live theatre, with socially distanced audiences. Not only is this unoriginal, but it doesn’t address all of the other problems with creating live theatre. How will performers stay safe from one another? What about designers and technicians? No points were made regarding how that will unfold. Theatre is at a standstill because of ideas like this. We can’t just continue with our art without ensuring we can keep people safe. And Friedman does bring up one enlightening question: How can we keep audiences socially distanced and still be responsible financially? Theatres cannot remain open with only half their audience. So this suggestion is completely futile, and Friedman knows it. For some reason, she says that we have to do it anyways. While I understand the emotional need for theatre, I’m not going to let that hinder my understanding for having to keep everyone safe.
First of all, I must say that I agree with Katie’s point that the article doesn’t really do what the title promises which is provide a cure for theatre. The only solution he comes up with is that we need to bring back live performance and theatre as soon as possible. Of course, everybody in the world would want this to happen, but we need to be present and deal with the realities we are facing. When reading the article, it was interesting to see the author examine what makes a live audience and live performance so appealing to its consumers. It is very interesting to analyze that sitting in a room with many people and having a shared experience of laughter or tears is inherently human and the most immediate way in which a human being can share with another what is the sense of being a human being. I agree with the points made that Theatre is vital to our collective well being and mental health.
Post a Comment