We really don't care about theatre do we?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (811 of them)
however, theatre only really works in venues seating less than a few hundred people.

DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 25 April 2003 11:02 (12 years ago) Permalink

1 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 (10 years ago) Permalink

what about DANCE?

RJG (RJG), Sunday, 24 October 2004 17:59 (10 years ago) Permalink

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

RJG (RJG), Sunday, 24 October 2004 17:59 (10 years ago) Permalink

are you dancing tonight?

jed_ (jed), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:01 (10 years ago) Permalink

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

RJG (RJG), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:05 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 years ago) Permalink

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

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:52 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 years ago) Permalink

bla bla proscenium arch bla bla.

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:58 (10 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 (10 years ago) Permalink

um, i mean, ROFFLE etc.

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:04 (10 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 (10 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 (10 years ago) Permalink

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

phil-two (phil-two), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:06 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 years ago) Permalink

that was a big ol' xpost

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:11 (10 years ago) Permalink

amateurist you haven't addressed mad mike's point.

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:12 (10 years ago) Permalink

even super-long take films aren't often really "filmed theater": gertrud, flowers of shanghai, etc. are pretty fucking cinematic (some would argue with that, i guess).

to get "filmed theater" you need to go back to 1895-1910 or so, like the original version of the "wizard of oz" which is basically "selected scenes from the stage play of 'the wizard of oz'"--but as i noted above the spatial aspect of film is such that a stage performance is NECESSARILY transformed if it is to be "faithfully" captured on film. those early films that don't bother with such a transformation are often incomprehensible and usually dismissed as "primtive" (that's another hill of beans or whatever).

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:14 (10 years ago) Permalink

yeah i didn't say long-take, i said one-setup

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:16 (10 years ago) Permalink

[shrugs] I also happen to think that people who have studied the very specific crafts and techniques of an art form are the absolutely worst people in the world to ask to distinguish between technical differences and fundamental differences among art forms. It would be like asking a lithographer whether lithography has much in common with engraving or intaglio. To a naive onlooker, they are all 'pictures', using composition, line and form.

Aimless (Aimless), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:17 (10 years ago) Permalink

= "i give up"

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:18 (10 years ago) Permalink

sorry we're not naive enough for you

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:19 (10 years ago) Permalink

amateurist & i are discussing this in good faith, aimless, it's kind of annoying to have what we're saying totally dismissed for some dumbass reason just because we don't agree with you

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:20 (10 years ago) Permalink

oh, i know.

some "fixed setup" films do sort of selfconsciously evoke a "theatrical" quality, or even overtly beg comparison to theater: oliveira, etc.--or to "primitive" cinema (angelopoulos). and certain kinds of framing (even outside the context of a long-take style) can evoke theater, "performance" too with fruitful results. but lots of fixed-setup films really don't evoke theater at all. it's impossible to imagine hou or jia films as anything but cinema--the natural settings, natural lighting, etc. are absolutely critical.

anyway yeah so i think cinema can do a lot with "theatricality" and i don't think calling a film "theatrical" is a very convincing slur (unless you're writing in 1905, maybe).

i'm repeating myself and possibly not making sense.\

XPOST

s1ocki, i didn't find aimless's post dismissive. anyways i'm not a film student or anything. i'm not sure about agree/disagree--i don't think i dismissed aimless's post or embraced it fully. i just sort of responded to it.

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:22 (10 years ago) Permalink

my "oh, i know" was a response to yeah i didn't say long-take, i said one-setup

!!

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:23 (10 years ago) Permalink

haha i just gathered that phil-two is talking about the ALW musical! my grandma loved "memories"

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:23 (10 years ago) Permalink

sorry that kind of steamed me for some reason

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:24 (10 years ago) Permalink

i have an image of s1ocki as a caffe latte

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:24 (10 years ago) Permalink

now it's gone

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:24 (10 years ago) Permalink

s1ocki are you on aim? (i'm on aim for the first time in like 7 months...)

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:25 (10 years ago) Permalink

yes!!

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:27 (10 years ago) Permalink

1 year passes...
Did anyone see John Patrick Shanley's Doubt? I did, last night, since the stars (Cherry Jones and Brian F. O'Byrne) are leaving Sunday. Better than I expected, given my last two experiences with Pulitzer-winning drama (The Young Man from Atlanta and, yikes, Topdog/Underdog) weren't at all satisfying. Perhaps a tad 'clever' in its "You think you know what happened? Oh no you don't" structure, but the dialogue and acting were sharp. Having had a Catholic education may help.

Seen anything else? New Yorkers, Albee's Seascape?

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 15:25 (9 years ago) Permalink

Or just that it's intriniscally hard to talk about on a global forum like this, performances being site and time specific?

that's probably it, coupled with the world's general philistinism. I wuv the theatre and wish i went to it more often. The last thing I saw was a monster production of Titus Andronicus before Christmas.

DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 15:27 (9 years ago) Permalink

I like the idea of monsters acting in plays.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 15:29 (9 years ago) Permalink

RARRRR! OH NO, I HATE MY CO-STAR AGAIN!

DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 15:36 (9 years ago) Permalink

Theatre is brilliant, and there's really no reason not go more, esp. for those in London, and even here in provincial Oxford, which is awash with half-decent student productions as well as some great Sheakespeare. But last year I only caught a very good As You Like It and a seven-thumbs Waiting for Godo, which is poor. The last time I went near a theatre was to see Just a Minute when it was last in Oxford (hardly a visual spectacle, works better if you shut your eyes unsurprisingly) and next time I'm going is to see The Mighty Boosh in February.

We need a rolling Theatre S/D thread really, but as you all say, nobody cares.

Johnny B Was Quizzical (Johnney B), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 15:47 (9 years ago) Permalink

i agree DV, theatre is probably the most vital art form there is now, the level of creativity and expression is incredible. it's a shame that the thread devolved into people talking about cinema again.

xp i care

jed_ (jed), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 15:47 (9 years ago) Permalink

theatre is probably the most vital art form there is now

Yes, but why? (I'm not being flippant.)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 15:48 (9 years ago) Permalink

my aunt wants to take me to something called JOHN at Signature NYC on Aug 8 but it's about young struggling love blegh

trying to figure out something else

surm, Tuesday, 21 July 2015 15:26 (1 month ago) Permalink

it's by the playwright/dir of The Flick, surm, big dual profile in the Sunday Times

she can take me! j/k

skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 21 July 2015 16:02 (1 month ago) Permalink

in addition to Christopher Abbott, the legendary Lois Smith is in it i think. the reg tix are just $25 anyhoo.

skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 21 July 2015 16:04 (1 month ago) Permalink

oh u hafta subscribe for the discount, that figgers

http://www.signaturetheatre.org/tickets/production.aspx?pid=4241

skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 21 July 2015 16:07 (1 month ago) Permalink

yeah she's insisting on it Morbs. she's like do you want to bring your bf? i'm like ... no

surm, Tuesday, 21 July 2015 16:11 (1 month ago) Permalink

btw The Flick just extended here thru January 10.

skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 23 July 2015 17:20 (1 month ago) Permalink

iiinteresting

surm, Thursday, 23 July 2015 19:10 (1 month ago) Permalink

Finally got on the Jerusalem bandwagon, fantastic. Amazing character and performance. Let down a little by my crappy restricted view seat. Wonder what A Farrell of this parish thought...

Hah, I don't think I was much of this parish at that point.

I thought it was fantastic, one of the best things I've seen, and it gave me a lot of Thoughts about England, particularly as contrasted with Britain. It strikes me as secretly being partially about the Criminal Justice Act, and I really wish I could discuss it with the dude I know who I am pretty certain has strong firsthand views on such things (and may have joked about being the kid on the gatefold of Songs For the Jilted Generation), but I'm pretty certain he didn't see it. I mean, the dude is doing okay, he has a canal boat now, but he doesn't see a lot of £50 plays.

Andrew Farrell, Friday, 24 July 2015 17:51 (1 month ago) Permalink

Has anyone seen The Trial as a play? What was it like?

The answer is now yes, Rory Kinnear in the Young Vic production. It was pretty good. Wasn't convinced at first, it started out like a lurid bedroom farce interspersed with brief monologues in a strange kind of joycean proto-language. But it got increasingly nightmarish, though no less lurid - the hints and elided scenes of sex in the novel were dragged into the full glare of our hypermediated and hypersexualised environment - and it had a real sense of bewilderment and persecution. It did pull a punch with the death scene though.

Benedict Cumberbatch thought it (or Kinnear) was worth a standing ovation.

ledge, Wednesday, 29 July 2015 09:03 (1 month ago) Permalink

Well if Cumberbatch likes it then who are we to disagree?

xyzzzz__, Wednesday, 29 July 2015 09:12 (1 month ago) Permalink

Well they're probably bezzie mates so it would have been rude of him not to. Kinnear was very good though, as was Kate O’Flynn playing multiple roles.

ledge, Wednesday, 29 July 2015 09:41 (1 month ago) Permalink

i thought the trial was very good - i liked kinnear, don't normally like him, and kate o'flynn was amazing. the set was great. one drawback was that the music was poor and very clichéd, i felt.

doing my Objectives, handling some intense stuff (LocalGarda), Wednesday, 29 July 2015 09:52 (1 month ago) Permalink

i didn't like the clockwork orange style proto-language - i thought that was pretty stupid and didn't add to it

doing my Objectives, handling some intense stuff (LocalGarda), Wednesday, 29 July 2015 09:52 (1 month ago) Permalink

Can't say I'm a fan of Clockwork Orange-speak either :-( Hopefully that didn't elbow Kafka's phrasing too much.

I'll find out in a couple of weeks.

xyzzzz__, Wednesday, 29 July 2015 09:58 (1 month ago) Permalink

Stage director Peter Brook is revisiting The Mahabharata, his nine-hour epic stage production from 1985, as part of the Young Vic's new season.

The new play Battlefield, will focus on one section of the epic, dealing with the aftermath of a military conflict.

It will premiere in Paris on 15 September before coming to the Young Vic in February.

I'm in.

xyzzzz__, Wednesday, 29 July 2015 15:30 (1 month ago) Permalink

2 weeks pass...

Well, Marc Maron has a post about loving Annie Baker's The Flick and John and interviewed her for an upcoming show, so maybe she'll be reaching a broader audience soon. Maybe the first mainstream "cool" playwright since Kushner?

... (Eazy), Monday, 17 August 2015 17:30 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

lin-manuel miranda begs to differ

Meta Forksclove-Liebeskind (forksclovetofu), Monday, 17 August 2015 17:57 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Oh, that's true.

... (Eazy), Monday, 17 August 2015 17:58 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Did manage to catch The Trial and liked Kate O'Flynn in those multiple roles of hers.

The mix-up of tenses from Kinnear did add a level of risk. I want to read the book and see if it adds anything -- Kinnear did convey someone who is kinda meek and shy and then has to break out of himself (which Kafka as a person has never done) to attempt to survive (which, again, Kafka himself didn't do).

xyzzzz__, Tuesday, 18 August 2015 10:02 (1 week ago) Permalink


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