We really don't care about theatre do we?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (663 of them)

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 (8 years ago) Permalink

um, i mean, ROFFLE etc.

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:04 (8 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 (8 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 (8 years ago) Permalink

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

― phil-two (phil-two), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:06 (8 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 (8 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 (8 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 (8 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 (8 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 (8 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 (8 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 (8 years ago) Permalink

that was a big ol' xpost

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:11 (8 years ago) Permalink

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

― s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:12 (8 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 (8 years ago) Permalink

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

― s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:16 (8 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 (8 years ago) Permalink

= "i give up"

― s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:18 (8 years ago) Permalink

sorry we're not naive enough for you

― s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:19 (8 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 (8 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 (8 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 (8 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 (8 years ago) Permalink

sorry that kind of steamed me for some reason

― s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:24 (8 years ago) Permalink

i have an image of s1ocki as a caffe latte

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:24 (8 years ago) Permalink

now it's gone

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:24 (8 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 (8 years ago) Permalink

yes!!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:27 (8 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 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink

I like the idea of monsters acting in plays.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 15:29 (7 years ago) Permalink

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

― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 15:36 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, there are a number of folks who care here in NY and London... even if the commercial stuff is too damn expensive ($42 in the last row of Doubt, and that was half off!). The cost is the main reason people feel so disconnected, however hard they try to attend cheaper and fringier theatre.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 15:51 (7 years ago) Permalink

I'm not the biggest fan of Mike Leigh's movies, but I'm curious about his current plays in both London and NY (though apparently London tix are impossible?). I've also never been to theatre at the BAM before, and want to try to change that this Spring. And maybe the Roundabout's Harry Connick, Jr. Pajama Game or Nellie Mackay Threepenny Opera, though I was primarily interested in Edie Falco, and I should probably be thinking more about new stuff than revivals, which account for much of my theatre-going experience.

speaking of revivals, though, when I was in LA, I took my grandmother to one of the Reprise! shows, which had great original choreography and housed in a small enough theatre (at UCLA) that the amplification (live orchestra) wasn't overbearing. one of the leads, Tami Tappan Damiano, was moderately impressive too. they also do one-weekend shows with some medium-sized Hollywood types (when I was there - Working, with among others Camryn Manheim).

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 16:12 (7 years ago) Permalink

The off-Broadway Mike Leigh play (Abigail's Party) with Jennifer Jason Leigh is a revival. The UK TV version from the '70s is very uncomfortable and mortifying, in a good way, mostly.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 16:24 (7 years ago) Permalink

I should see more theatre. Even if it's just to see friends' shows.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 16:25 (7 years ago) Permalink

The cost is the main reason people feel so disconnected, however hard they try to attend cheaper and fringier theatre.

I basically prefer fringier theatre... partly this is the indie kid in me, but I think also that fringy theatre is more true to what the theatre is all about. It's still more expensive than I'd like it to be... why can't they just replace all actors with cheaper non-unionised Eastern Europeans?

The thing I hate most about the theatre is that in general you have to book in advance and can't just show up on whim to things like you can with other things.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 16:26 (7 years ago) Permalink

most of the revival stuff i've seen is 50s or older

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 16:27 (7 years ago) Permalink

i know you ain't ned. i think that the theatre became so marginalised under the onslaught (sp?) of Film and TV that it seemed quite pointless and conservative for a long time, this is still the general public's impression of what theatre will be like: not quite as good at realism as theatre or film, so what's the point? the point is that theatre fought back by going beyond realism, it's that kind of theatre (devised theatre especially) that i find so vital. if you do compare it to film then i think it's film now that looks conservative in comparison now.

when i say "beyond realism" i mean it in the most mundane way that you might not find interesting at all, that's cool. for example, in film a table is always a table but in the theatre that exact same table could be a table, a bed, an autopsy slab, a raft, a shelter, or any number of things. e.g. a Robert Lepage play i saw where a washing machine doubles up as a space ship (not as ridiculous as it sounds). there are any number of things you can "only do in the theatre" whereas the public perception is that theatre is limited in some way, compared to film. i think it's the opposite. this needs lots of examples & i don't have the time to go into it now but i'll come back to it later.

― jed_ (jed), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 16:33 (7 years ago) Permalink

any news on the august wilson cycle at the tricycle, london?

theres a bunch of interesting stuff on in london, and here in the provinces we've got "the romans in britain" next month in sheffield, dario fo's "mistero buffo" in april, and in leeds the trinidadian "three sisters" at the WYP, which i was reading about the other day.

I love the crucible, but the last thing i saw there was a hmmmm version of "much ado about nothing"

saw the history boys too in sheffield which was excellent, although i thought the set was a bit showy.

i dont understand going to the theatre in london, from what my parents go through it seems as though you have to book tickets a year in advance or something?!?!! up here i just turn up generally.

mind you, that yforward planning allowed me to see the full 9 hours of "coast of utopia" at the national which was pretty fucking special, if a bit harsh on yr ass

― ambrose (ambrose), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 16:39 (7 years ago) Permalink

xpost to myself

ok - i think the the table thing is an example of something that opens out wider possibilites for theatre, i dont mean it just like "props in the theatre can be many different things and that's why it's important" but as i said i'll give more examples later.

― jed_ (jed), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 16:42 (7 years ago) Permalink

Jaymc, you have no excuse not to see theatre because you live in Chicago where it's plentiful. I miss that about Chicago. It's really not cost-effective to see theatre anywhere else, outside of the odd West End 1/2 price special.

― ng-unit, Wednesday, 4 January 2006 17:04 (7 years ago) Permalink

You are absolutely right about that.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 17:05 (7 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I would be at that Neo-Futurists' complex at least monthly if I was in Chi.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 17:06 (7 years ago) Permalink

And I live three blocks away from the Neo-Futurarium! Except "Too Much Light Makes the Baby Go Blind" is a pale imitation of its peak 5-10 years ago.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 17:08 (7 years ago) Permalink

i saw nathan lane and lee evans in "the producers" on the west end and i bought the tickets that day by queuing up at drury lane at 11am. i only had to wait for an hour or two. the show later that night contained the most amazing moment i may have ever witnessed at a show. lee evans, as the nervous accountant, shows up at the times square apartment of the monstrous theatrical producer played by nathan lane, and he's looking for a job. after satisfying himself that evans isn't a cop, lane embraces him with gusto, takes his coat, and hurls it in the air towards the couch as he carries on chattering. the coat flies over the couch and manages to catch precisely on the coat-hooks mounted by the door of the set, some twenty feet away! the audience gives a great gasp. the two men turn to look, and see the coat nestled there, hanging perfectly by its collar. they look at each other, unable to speak. the moment is utterly frozen and no one has any idea what will break the ice. nathan lane makes a quick hand-dusting motion and, jimmy durante style, rasps "still got it!"

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 17:18 (7 years ago) Permalink

Well I saw "Too Much Light Makes the Baby Go Blind" in summer 2001, so maybe i caught the peak's dying embers! It was way funnier than I remember Second City being around 1991.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 January 2006 17:21 (7 years ago) Permalink

Skipping 563 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

This I'd like to see:
http://www.thewrap.com/culture/article/fiona-shaw-returning-broadway-colm-toibins-testament-mary-72086

Haven't heard anything bad about VaWoolf all these years. Never was in the right place at the right time to see it.

This is funny:
http://www.broadway.com/buzz/166904/whos-virginia-woolf-watch-tracy-letts-and-amy-morton-endure-five-awkward-tv-questions/

― to each his own but (Eazy), Saturday, 26 January 2013 19:26 (3 months ago) Permalink

^Saw it yesterday.

The state of Broadway audiences is such that the douse-your-phones announcement was made BEFORE EACH OF THE THREE ACTS. George's Who's Afraid monologue about the coming death of civilization via technology fulfilled.

― saltwater incursion (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 3 February 2013 15:21 (3 months ago) Permalink

Glad to hear it's worththe time and ticket (just saw the Albee thread). Did it feel like a good version of the same play you'd seen before, or new/fresh?

― a tidy profit in Russia (Eazy), Sunday, 3 February 2013 16:56 (3 months ago) Permalink

well since I'd never seen the full text performed, given the film cuts, yes it did seem fresh. I'm pretty sure the Act III scene where Martha tells Nick that George is the only man who's ever satisfied her was not in the movie?

I'm gonna look for that 4 x LP of the first staging now, tho I won't play it today...

I don't think I could watch that Fox interview, anymore than a snuff film.

― saltwater incursion (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 3 February 2013 17:30 (3 months ago) Permalink

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