|
wednesday, march 24, 1999, 02:56 i've been watching a lot of theatre lately. and unlike most of the theatre which i have had a hand in creating over the past few years here, this last batch has struck me as different in some way. different. but how? oh yes. the shows that i've been watching don't involve those people typically thought of as being part of the theatre clique. oh, there is no doubt in my head that there is a clique. we, in fact, often refer to ourselves as a clique, openly and without reservation. after all, many of us are on numerous boards in charge of different theatre productions which are occuring on campus. and still others are friends with those who are, or sleep with those who are, or used to sleep with those who are, etc. but this group of people whom i've been watching. they're not part of that scene. they're often thought of as a pain in our collective side. and why is that? most likely because they're doing theatre that doesn't live up to our standards? though "up" in this case is a bit misleading. not so much that they don't live up to the standards, but rather that they don't conform to the standards. standards set by us of course. by those in charge of what should and should not be created on campus. so what's so wrong with the pieces that i've see lately? it's pretty much a mixed bag all around. the acting in one piece that i saw tonight was good. the other, not so good. two original pieces by one author. pieces written and produced and performed by people not in this circle of friends. i'm guilty of it myself. "oh yeah, he's such a pain in the ass," i would say. and mean it. because he wasn't playing by our rules. the rules that we set for the theatre. and rules are there for a reason, true, but sometimes (and just sometimes, i tell myself) it seems that the rules are there to be broken. but this is silly talk of physical rules of a theatre. to get back to that high lofty theory stuff... what is the difference between good theatre and bad theatre? in the eyes of an audience, it is the difference between being conveyed a message through a performance, and not. at least in my opinion, humble as it is, leaving a theatre piece in disgust is more effective than leaving a piece bored. if a reaction was evoked, then art, i believe, was made. take these pieces that i've been watching. "that's funny," we, as the collective theatre being, might say. but is it art? can we watch this creation happening in front of us, this product, and watch the reaction of the audience, and watch the performers on stage and not see the good in that? can we not see the fact that any theatre that is being created, be it good or bad in our minds, should have the right to live and the right to at least be given the chance to go out and touch people? well nobody from the collective theatre body would know, because none of them were there tonight.
| sun |