We really don't care about theatre do we?

realism SuXoR.

the point for me would be the same as that for going to London in the first place

it's at the national, right? they keep back a certain number of tickets for every performance and sell them for a tenner (i think) on the day. the seats could be anywhere. they start selling them at 10am iirc, the only time i did it i got there for about 8, was the third person in the queue, spent a pleasant couple of hours reading, chatting and peoplewatching and got a front row seat (not as great as it sounds as the stage is at head-height) for the philip pullman/archbish rowan 'platform' debate (that wasn't a tenner actually, it was £3 or something. anyway it was brilliant). so er, yeah, if you get up early you can get a ticket.

I think the title of the Gorey show was "Dispirited Diversion for Christmas," but I get a little confused since the Hypocrites also adapted "The Curious Sofa" as a toy theatre piece. That also ruled.

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.

I am more interested in the other reaction, personally -- of saying, "wait, film might be able to throw in more realistic details but in theatre you, personally, are really there, as are the actors and everything else." Which is to say that it seems largely hard to justify a proscenium stage, since that comes off as a poor recreation of film. But, without going into boring and painful forms of "interactive" theatre, you can still engage an audience in a more literal way.

Which is to say, most of what I think could be interesting in theatre these days come closer to "installations" or even "performance art" if that weren't so loaded with unpleasant associations.

I think I've heard of Justin Tanner, but I'm not really in the mood to watch a play about wifeswapping.

where they really do fall down compared to other devised theatre groups i have seen and loved - Lepage's Ex-Machina, The Wooster Group, Theatre de Complicite - is that they don't move so well and it's not as tight, performance-wise. also they totally wear their research on their sleeve as a sort of badge of honour "hey aren't we clever?" - really really trying hard to make it clear to the audience that they've done alot of reading for this thing. whereas with those other groups the obvious heavy research they have done to get where thay are just falls away because the performances themselves and the mechanics of the staging are generally so stunning. as i said it WAS a work in progress but i have seen works in progress from those other groups too.

also i saw a devised piece from the belgian thatre company Wayne Traub about a month ago that had obviously had alot of money thrown at it, was technically very impressive: split screens displaying alternate narratives simultaneously; hoists for the props to dissappear and reappear mid scene; gorgeous sets and constumes... and it was one of the most empty and vapid and depressing theatrical experiences ever. the critics love them.

Goat Island is fabu. DOG Theater in Chicago is heavily Goat Island-influenced and totally recommended.

Bennett, along with his other stage-TV-film stuff, wrote one of my favorite film comedies of the last few decades, A Private Function w/ Michael Palin and Maggie Smith.

greatest American musical ever, people. or at least, the most fun.

I like going to the theatre but somehow I never actually go unless someone else suggests it. Then often I read reviews of things and wish I'd gone. That's where cinema wins in terms of easily-digestible culture, because if you miss a film in a theatre, you can watch it some other time.

Black Watch is finally happening

also, Claire Danes in, uh, Pygmalion - http://www.roundabouttheatre.org/aa.htm

Theater is basically where painting was 100 years ago at the advent of photography. It is no longer the most useful tool for documenting actual events (film does it better), but it's liberated from that responsibility as well.