We really don't care about theatre do we?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (896 of them)
There are two productions in NY right now that i want to see, The Blacks from the Harlem Theater Company and Fucking A on Broadway, you know the reworking of

edmonton theater is really vivid and i try to see one a month, but it is prohibtivley expensive.

anthony easton (anthony), Sunday, 6 April 2003 17:22 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

(Yeah, Nabisco, what happened to Nory? I liked her. Can you lure her back, please?)

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 6 April 2003 17:43 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

(Seconded.)

Cozen (Cozen), Sunday, 6 April 2003 19:04 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Nory is megafanfab! And a grand person. :-)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 6 April 2003 19:38 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

The whole "realism" thing is still being worked out. I think film overtook theater in this dept sometime around the New Wave and theater's still going through spasms trying to deal with it. I don't really go that much. We don't talk about theater here because we'd it's not mass-distributed so we don't have common events or artifacts to anchor a discussion. We'd all have to be like total theater-hounds to even talk abstractly about stuff, and one thing theater's not served by is abstraction.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Sunday, 6 April 2003 19:55 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

The whole "what eyes are seeing this" thing is SO much smaller w/theater, its circulation is so curt-tailed. So it seems less "important", in a "must have opinion on this" kind of way?

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Sunday, 6 April 2003 20:29 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

(Nory's currently doing the jobs of about two and a half people, so she doesn't really have the time.)

nabisco (nabisco), Sunday, 6 April 2003 20:58 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

We don't talk about theater here because we'd it's not mass-distributed

Quite so. This is the strength and the weakness of theater.

Skottie, Sunday, 6 April 2003 21:05 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Can you get her fired from one of them, Nabisco?

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 6 April 2003 21:11 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Hey, that's mean! But if it would give her a little more time with no salary decrease...

Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 6 April 2003 23:22 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

If someone could explain to me why theatre/er still has a point, I might get interested in it. I don't think it's the same as the paintings/drawings/etchings/whatever vs. Photos thing at all (because you can DO so much more with the former set than the latter whereas it seems like you can do less with plays than with film but I still feel really small-minded saying that but i think it's only because High Culture is still into plays and we've still got that thing where we think that They Know What They're Talking About despite the fact that every play review I read reads like it's completely made up of really weak excuses for a pathetic, unentertaining experience).

Dan I., Sunday, 6 April 2003 23:28 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

In NYC, Richard Foreman and the Wooster Group. They (forgive me) rock. And they've both been essentially doing the same thing for decades. But not only does that thing (those things) give unending returns (I think), it also seems as though nobody else has managed to do anything weirder or more interesting or dizzying or disorienting. Your standard theater just guarantees me ninety minutes of sound sleep. But things are different in Lodon, I think. Yes?

Methuselah (Methuselah), Sunday, 6 April 2003 23:29 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Er, that would be "London."

Methuselah (Methuselah), Sunday, 6 April 2003 23:30 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I just saw the Wooster Group's "Brace Up!," their adaptation of Chekhov's "Three Sisters," and it was absolutely fantastic. Only running for another week--GO SEE IT!

Douglas (Douglas), Monday, 7 April 2003 00:44 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

The only good theater I've ever seen has been plays directed by Tadashi Suzuki. I'm sure there's more stuff out there just as good, but I haven't seen any yet.

A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 7 April 2003 00:55 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

" it seems like you can do less with plays than with film"

What about the differences between watching a concert video or being at a concert. The is more excitment and energy live, it is happening 'now', and there is no setbacks of use of media when seeing it live.

I think potentially theater could be one of the most amazing artforms, but I've never seen anyone do much good with it.

A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 7 April 2003 00:59 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Somebody needs to invent mass-distributable theater so we can talk about it!

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 7 April 2003 05:17 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

i work at the Guthrie Theater here in Minneapolice (ush-urr-ing), but i don't see much theatre outside the place.
just the same play over and over for a month---which is fine when i like the play---and i'm learning a lot about this mysterious art...but:
Six Degrees of Separation was shrill and the jokes were all flat. it WAS kind of amusing to watch our stodgy patrons reel back in shock and horror when the naked hustler showed up, and see them fidgeting nervously during the long silent boy-boy kissing scene, but christ i'm glad its not 1991 or whenever this was considered 'edgy' and deep.

tonight was closing night thoughYAY.
and next up is -Chekhovs's Three Sisters-. i am very excited.

and Top Girls at the Guthrie Lab- no idea.

anyway the Guthrie is nice and usually lush and well-produced an stuff, and i get starry thinking about upcoming Shakespeare but it is warping my young mind by relentlessly beating on about the CLASSICS. etc. i really need to find myself a wealthy sugar-momma to take out to other theaters.

ok i got my tightpants on- i'm off to lurk 'mysteriously' outside high-priced Edina hairsalons.

gabriel (gabe), Monday, 7 April 2003 08:37 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

We recently TRIED very hard to sit through the first part of "A La Recherche du temps perdu.' Sadly the heating was on FOOL BLAST, the seats were too 'ard to sit comfortably watching the show and... the show itself was a-trocious. Trying not falling asleep when the main character puts his head between curtains and his face is screened on those curtains while he is reading off an auto-cue. On top of that the book/play itself is loooooooooooooong.

nathalie (nathalie), Monday, 7 April 2003 12:22 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Aha, you've been there too. Marcel Proust on Tour.

Erik, Monday, 7 April 2003 12:30 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...
'theater-hounds': Hand is such a card.

the pinefox, Thursday, 24 April 2003 23:18 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I haven't been to the theatre in ages, mainly because the companies and writers I've been following have done dick all lately.

good theatre is great. people who think theatre is obsolete know nothing.

DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 25 April 2003 11:01 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

however, theatre only really works in venues seating less than a few hundred people.

DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 25 April 2003 11:02 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

one year passes...
I haven't been to the theatre in ages mainly because the sort of theatre i like no longer comes to Glasgow. Ten years or so ago Mainly because of the Tramway) it was possible to come to Glasgow to see The Wooster group perfmoring almost their entire ouvre (the only place in Europe you could see it) of which i have seen Brace Up!, LSD (just the highlights) and House/Lights. Their new one "Poor Theatre" is just about to kick of in New York - i'd love to see it and am extremely jealous of you new yorkers.

In addition Lepage/ Ex Machina were frequent visitors to Glasgow and i think i have seen most oof his plays here. Theatre de Complicite don't come here anymore either. I miss stuff like this.

jed_ (jed), Sunday, 24 October 2004 17:56 (twelve years ago) Permalink

what about DANCE?

RJG (RJG), Sunday, 24 October 2004 17:59 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I meant to go to the tramway, this weekend, but forgot.

RJG (RJG), Sunday, 24 October 2004 17:59 (twelve years ago) Permalink

are you dancing tonight?

jed_ (jed), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:01 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I would like to but I have stupid things, to be up for.

RJG (RJG), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:05 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Dan sums up my own feelings well upthread. Theatre is irrelvant and invariably dull. Upper class and upper middle class goons go to it to feel special and sophisticated. I've met these people and they are assholess so why should I want to be in their company anyway?

Mad.Mike, Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:37 (twelve years ago) Permalink

well you're just in a theatre so you're not really in their company. The theatre i love most is not likt that at all in any case.

jed_ (jed), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:40 (twelve years ago) Permalink

The 'theater' is so far from being dead that it has become the dominant art form.

Of course, this is only true if you disregard the technical differences between onstage performance, film and television. As far as I am concerned the differences really are minor technicalities.

In all three media you have scripted dialogue telling a story with actors, costumes, scenery, lighting, incidental music, and so on.

The fact that a camera lens imposes a control over the audience's point-of-view that cannot be utilized in stage performances does not make much difference in my view. Stage direction tries to filter the audience's attention, too, except it uses lighting effects, blocking of actor's movements, and other technical means that are somewhat less effective than a camera. The goal is quite similar.

Theater people are just blinded by their nostalgic love of certain techniques that must be modified or discarded in a filmed setting as opposed to a stage setting. They identify these technicalities with 'theater', abhor the new technicalities of movies and tv, and overlook the overwhelming similarities between all the various forms of the modern theater.

Aimless (Aimless), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:49 (twelve years ago) Permalink

i completely disagree, movies and theatre are MILES apart (pictures telling stories vs. actors telling stories), or at least they are when they're good

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:52 (twelve years ago) Permalink

tv and theatre, however, are definitely a bit closer.

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:52 (twelve years ago) Permalink

The fact that a camera lens imposes a control over the audience's point-of-view that cannot be utilized in stage performances does not make much difference in my view. Stage direction tries to filter the audience's attention, too, except it uses lighting effects, blocking of actor's movements, and other technical means that are somewhat less effective than a camera. The goal is quite similar.

you're making like montage is just another nifty gadget in the film director's toolbox; really it is ESSENTIAL to film, much more so than lighting and blocking is to theatre

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:54 (twelve years ago) Permalink

i don't theater and film need be, um, dichotomized so aggressively. they can fruitfully feed off each other. by its very nature film and theater pose different artistic challenges. many qualities grouped under the epithet "theatrical" don't really seem very essentially theatrical to me--just a legacy of the conventional wisdom that film only became film after it tossed off its debt to the theater (and "griffith invented cinema" etc.).

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:57 (twelve years ago) Permalink

well maybe i'm being reactionary. but i do think tv and theatre have a lot more in common than movies & theatre.

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:58 (twelve years ago) Permalink

bla bla proscenium arch bla bla.

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:58 (twelve years ago) Permalink

as an art form practiced in the real world, though, theater really has become marginalized.... any by film, i think, more than anything else. (film basically economically/otherwise supplanted entire theatrical traditions in a period of 10-20 years.) there's an argument that film is more appropriate for certain modes of drama--melodrama for instance. because its indexical quality makes it a better vehicle for spectacle and "illusion"--i think this is by and large true.

xpost

the spatial quality of film and theater are to a large extent opposed.... the camera's "field of vision" is like an upside-down triangle, whereas a conventional stage is a bit the opposite (why it's rare for a theater director to stage a signification action in the back of the stage--harder to ensure that the audience's attention is directed to it). so they pose very different staging problems. i don't quite buy aimless's argument that this means they are different only in the method by which an audience's attention is directed. i think there is a place for ontological speculation....

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:03 (twelve years ago) Permalink

um, i mean, ROFFLE etc.

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:04 (twelve years ago) Permalink

i think with staging it's a completely completely different ballgame, unless we're talking rotating stages or something here

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:06 (twelve years ago) Permalink

anyway i think it's obvious that there are possibilities to filmic narration that simply aren't available in the theater--and this has implications for what films can do, how they can engage an audience. what isn't often brought up is what possibilities are inherent in theater and unavailable in film, aside from the "immediacy" thing--and i have to admit i haven't considered that and other possible advantages of theater too much, simply because theater has never had much place in my life. i have really enjoyed some plays, though, of course.

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:06 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I LOVE CATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

phil-two (phil-two), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:06 (twelve years ago) Permalink

as well theatre is like 90% WHAT THE PEOPLE DO, whereas with film this is not neccessarily so

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:07 (twelve years ago) Permalink

xpost

slocki, it seems to me a hell of a lot of great films were made in the 1930s, and many of them were only a few baby steps away from being filmed stage productions with over-the-shoulder reaction shots and the occassional montage (thank you Sergei) to spice them up.

If montage is as ESSENTIAL as you say it is, then these films would have failed at birth, rather than becoming successful films - which, not coincidentally are still watched, enjoyed and studied today. Montage is just another nifty tool in a director's toolbox. It just happens to be such a useful tool that it gets used a lot.

Aimless (Aimless), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:07 (twelve years ago) Permalink

i think there is a nebulous actor-audience interaction in theatre that is cool and unique (xp)

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:07 (twelve years ago) Permalink

ok aimless i agree that there quite often CAN be a significant overlap, but that it is not a neccessary one

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:08 (twelve years ago) Permalink

and aimless even these "great 30s films" had cuts, closeups etc, they weren't just one-shot setups

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:09 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I used to act - for years - I really enjoyed acting on stage. But the people were such pretentious, posho tossers that I'd personally say that if all theatre grants were destroyed and the whole industry put in the rubbish bin it would not be a great loss to humanity.

Mad.Mike, Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:10 (twelve years ago) Permalink

a few baby steps away from being filmed stage productions with over-the-shoulder reaction shots and the occassional montage (thank you Sergei) to spice them up.

30s films are usually edited pretty briskly, so it's not simply a matter of using up a reel of film shooting an integral theatrical performance. "montage" doesn't mean soviet montage necessarily--just, y'know, editing bits of film together. all hollywood films are edited together from master shots, medium shots (plan american etc.), and occasionally inserts/close ups at a rate of i dunno one shot every 10-12 seconds. (nowadays it's more like every 5 seconds but we're talking about the 1930s)

i think this is pretty important: "filmed theater" isn't really as simple as that, the fact of it being filmed and edited together in the conventional way transforms the way the story is being told. perhaps the "meaning" is ultimately the same, but i'm not sure that's true or if it even matters so much.

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:11 (twelve years ago) Permalink

that was a big ol' xpost

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:11 (twelve years ago) Permalink

read as much of that horrifying original piece as i could stomach (not much)

we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 16 June 2016 02:59 (five months ago) Permalink

Neil LaBute gave them a bunch of U.S./world premiere productions of his scripts, and he's horrified too:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/theater/news/ct-profiles-theatre-chicago-closes-20160615-story.html

King Nagl (Eazy), Thursday, 16 June 2016 05:04 (five months ago) Permalink

Taylor Mac's 24 hour song cycle just went up at $400 a ticket and i really wanna but...

thrusted pelvis-first back (ulysses), Wednesday, 22 June 2016 17:12 (five months ago) Permalink

one month passes...

saw faith healer at donmar warehouse last night - it was one of the best things i've seen in london. gina mckee in particular did a 30-minute monologue that was absolutely perfect.

Bein' Sean Bean (LocalGarda), Thursday, 28 July 2016 10:10 (four months ago) Permalink

it's sold out but if you call into donmar you can get returns p easily. or there's the barclays front row thing on mondays but i couldn't get anything from that.

Bein' Sean Bean (LocalGarda), Thursday, 28 July 2016 10:11 (four months ago) Permalink

i thought it was fantastic too and i did get the front row tickets. in fact i managed it on two consecutive weeks so it's highly possible if you log in before 10am.

did you realise that Frank was played by Stephen Dillane aka Stannis Baratheon? Mind Blown when i googled it afterwards. I thought everyone was fantastic in it. Ron Cook was amazing as Teddy and Gina was great but it was Dillane's mix of intensity and casual dismissal that stole the show for me. I would have liked to have seen a bit more done lighting-wise to differentiate the tone of the monologues but that was a v minor criticism.

Acting Crazy (Instrumental) (jed_), Thursday, 28 July 2016 22:57 (four months ago) Permalink

one month passes...

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/12/theater/bears-in-space-review-jack-gleeson.html

Oh look something you could go to see if you wanted

poor fiddy-less albion (darraghmac), Monday, 12 September 2016 08:04 (two months ago) Permalink

so uh what will be up in London, last week of November?

say, one West End and one smaller thing

or a classic and a gonzo brain-fryer

The Hon. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 22 September 2016 20:29 (two months ago) Permalink

(pref to things i won't get in NY obviously)

The Hon. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 22 September 2016 20:31 (two months ago) Permalink

Glenda Jackson as Lear, hmmmm

The Hon. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 22 September 2016 20:34 (two months ago) Permalink

among the American comedy revivals opening soon in London: Kaufman & Hart's Once in a Lifetime and Murray Schisgal's Luv

The Hon. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Dr Morbius), Monday, 26 September 2016 20:26 (two months ago) Permalink

I'm going to the king lear of glenda jackson and once in a lifetime in november - considering the children at the royal court which starts in november. have you looked at the national theatre? looking forward to seeing the red barn (david hare george simenon adap starring mark strong) next week which I think continues to the end of november but there may be other good things on then too

conrad, Monday, 26 September 2016 22:08 (two months ago) Permalink

i got tickets for the 24 hour taylor after all. gonna be a thing.

thrusted pelvis-first back (ulysses), Tuesday, 27 September 2016 04:49 (two months ago) Permalink

Mark Rylance has a thing too

The Hon. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 27 September 2016 06:03 (two months ago) Permalink

a thing he'd had in new york in 2013

conrad, Tuesday, 27 September 2016 10:31 (two months ago) Permalink

didnt see it nor do i remember

The Hon. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 27 September 2016 11:10 (two months ago) Permalink

anyone see this when it ran 3 years ago? i remember the reviews... West End transfer finally, and Phil Daniels!

https://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/shows/this-house

The Hon. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 27 September 2016 17:28 (two months ago) Permalink

I thought it was great. I considered recommending it but I guess I thought it might be a little...specific?

conrad, Tuesday, 27 September 2016 17:39 (two months ago) Permalink

i know a leetle about Brit politics of that era, having seen many punk documentaries :)

The Hon. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 27 September 2016 17:40 (two months ago) Permalink

I've seen a couple of other plays by the same writer which were fine but not particularly good - this house I remember thinking was particularly good. brisk and funny with convincing (to me) specificity.

conrad, Tuesday, 27 September 2016 17:46 (two months ago) Permalink

The Black Crook was super excellent
http://www.brooklynrail.org/2016/09/theater/debauching-many-a-pure-mind-the-return-of-the-black-crook

Taylor's 24 hour show had life changing qualities and i'm still unpacking

the notes the loon doesn't play (ulysses), Monday, 10 October 2016 13:36 (one month ago) Permalink

red barn bad btw

conrad, Monday, 10 October 2016 13:39 (one month ago) Permalink

probly wouldn't have made my cut, but thanks

The Hon. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Dr Morbius), Monday, 10 October 2016 14:20 (one month ago) Permalink

one month passes...

any small/indie London theatre recs? i have West End taken care of with This House... wil likely visit TKTS, see if The Children at Royal Court is available. but their web page doesn't seem to list non-WE stuff?

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 22 November 2016 16:12 (two weeks ago) Permalink

oh here we go

http://www.offwestend.com/

i've read good things abt the Pleasence Theatre

http://www.offwestend.com/index.php/theatres/shows/58

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 22 November 2016 16:27 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I can recommend Southwark Playhouse and the Almeida.

Daniel_Rf, Wednesday, 23 November 2016 10:46 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I don't have any particular recommendations at the moment - seeing the children in a couple of weeks. most of these "non-west-end" theatres, like the royal court and almeida, have their own sites and booking, although ATG groups together some incl donmar warehouse and trafalgar studios. almeida consistently good to very good and sometimes fantastic - depends when you're here as I think the current prod (which I liked) ends soon. southwark playhouse I have seen good things at but also some quite not good things. the king lear of glenda jackson at the old vic was good in parts - one part that was not good (was bad), sadly, was edgar. played by a grandson of patrick troughton. I realised later I'd seen him before in a not-great play by the guy that wrote this house.

conrad, Wednesday, 23 November 2016 12:17 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Garrick prod of This House opened last night; on Monday I got a post-show-discussion w/ the playwright (who is ten tons of cute btw), director and cast as well. A very well-oiled, funny, energetic thing, and lucid despite all the 40-yo politics.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/reviews/this-house-garrick-theatre-review-james-graham-conservative-lib-dem-coalition-a7449831.html

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:44 (six days ago) Permalink

the theatre designer i think i mentioned at some point at the lexington is rae smith, who was designer for the house (hadn't put two and two together here)

mark s, Friday, 2 December 2016 10:34 (five days ago) Permalink

plus in other ppl-we-discussed-at-the-lexington news: i got an email out of the blue from former ilxor colin beckett the very next day!

mark s, Friday, 2 December 2016 11:23 (five days ago) Permalink

i strongly disliked the Taylor mac distillation that i saw b4 it was completed

surm, Tuesday, 6 December 2016 18:38 (yesterday) Permalink

why? I'm a big fan.

A big shout out goes to the lamb chops, thos lamb chops (ulysses), Tuesday, 6 December 2016 19:14 (yesterday) Permalink

you know, i think it would take me a long time to correctly articulate, but for now i would just leave it at i've never loved performance art! i was sort of dragged against my will....

surm, Tuesday, 6 December 2016 19:37 (yesterday) Permalink

it requires buy-in, that's for sure. Not for everybody!

A big shout out goes to the lamb chops, thos lamb chops (ulysses), Tuesday, 6 December 2016 19:44 (yesterday) Permalink

^^truth

surm, Tuesday, 6 December 2016 20:07 (yesterday) Permalink

the encounter pretty incredible if you like that kind of thing

conrad, Tuesday, 6 December 2016 20:40 (yesterday) Permalink

i tend to!

A big shout out goes to the lamb chops, thos lamb chops (ulysses), Tuesday, 6 December 2016 20:50 (yesterday) Permalink

suwm you woulda loved my performance art.

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 6 December 2016 21:15 (yesterday) Permalink

haha i'm sure :)

surm, Tuesday, 6 December 2016 22:47 (yesterday) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.