tv like theatre?
cecile callan
the question of tv being like theatre is so broad and unspecified it
cannot be talked about intelligently. The only thing I can say about
realism being successful because it is accessible to the uneducated is
that Shakespeare was very successful in his day, with the royals and
groundlings alike. (Was that was because they didn't have tv?)
Cecile Callan
Rosemary McLaughlin
cecile callan wrote:>
> the question of tv being like theatre is so broad and unspecified
Perhaps you missed the original post on this which was framed more
specifically. (See below)
> it cannot be talked about intelligently.Says you!
;]
>The only thing I can say about realism being successful because it is
accessible to the uneducated is that Shakespeare was very successful in
his day, with the royals and groundlings alike.
Sure. What's that got to do with Realism?
Shakespeare is a perfect example of how theatre can be made accessible
to a broad audience without "dumbing it down".
>(Was that was because they didn't have tv?)
You tell me whether it was easier to get an audience THEN,
when, basically, the only other game in town was bear-baiting
or NOW, when you don't have to leave this computer to be (arguably)
entertained? To say nothing of TV, cd's and the vast array of public
entertainment including but not limited to the movies? If you don't
think such things have an effect on audience attendance just check
attendance records not only when silent films start but when talkies
emerge.
Again, the initial question was not whether tv is an evil
brain-shrivelling invention, but why so much of today's theatre is
little different from TV and when/how did this start to happen?
--Rosemary McLaughlin
> Cecile Callan
ORIGINAL POST:
> Jon Moore asked for my assistance in an area in which I have no expertise.
> Can any of you help? You can send your help and/or your comments regarding
> his premise directly to his e-mail address below.
>
> Here's Jon's letter:
>
> I am looking for sources that can help in my research of how theater has
> evolved throughout history to what seems to presently be the television for
> the lay person, as a sort of altar of humanity in the USA. If you have any
> thoughts for source location for research, it would be appreciated.
>
> >Sincerely,Jon
> e-mail= mors...@midwest.net
>
>
> Carole Clement
> Mentor, Ohio USA
> cle...@ncweb.com
Linda Eisenstein
>Again, the initial question was not whether tv is an evil
>brain-shrivelling invention, but why so much of today's theatre is
>little different from TV and when/how did this start to happen?>
>--Rosemary McLaughlin
I have a frequently reprinted article on playwriting called PLAYWRIGHTS:
TURN OFF THAT TV! that deals with this. It's been on the web (on Charles
Deemer's Playwrights Page, as I recall), and is included in my new book
"PRACTICAL PLAYWRITING" forthcoming soon (email me for details).
My own take? You cannot ingest thousands and thousands of hours of a
form/style and not have it affect your fundamental understanding of "how
stories are/should be told". IMHO most contemporary playwrights don't
even know how many of the conventions of a quite different genre they are
copying -- neither do directors and/or selection committees composed of
people under a certain age. If you've seen 5, 10, even 15 live plays in
your life, but 5,000 sitcoms? Duh. Which form do you think you'll write
in?
I strongly believe that using TV conventions makes for fairly deadly live
theatre, and feel I can support why. I know I'm swimming upstream here,
but I'd at least like people working on the stage to understand the
differences between the genres so they can make their choices consciously
rather than through habit and misunderstanding of the forms.
Linda Eisenstein
web site too long under construction
---
Linda Eisenstein
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
her...@en.com
WardNA
Producers will tell you the reason the theater is so much like TV is the
expenses inherent in producing anything but an intimate chamber piece.
Playwrights are dunned incessantly with the necessity of sticking to two
characters or fewer.
One might add several other reasons. The old-style theater's biggest
drawing card, spectacle, has been eclipsed by what's possible in movies.
So producers, knowing they can't compete with Jurassic Park, marshal their
forces (such as they are) to other areas.
Another reason is that theater, no longer being mainstream, tends not to
draw the finest minds to it, both in artists and audience. These people
tend to settle on what they know.
Neil
Or...@aol.com
In a message dated 97-04-30 02:54:35 EDT, you write:
<< Another reason is that theater, no longer being mainstream, tends not to
draw the finest minds to it, both in artists and audience. These people
tend to settle on what they know.
>>
I disagree with your thesis. I think the real problem is that many gifted
artists are treated badly and ignored in favor of hacks. The hacks pander to
the lowest common denominator and wouldn't know an original idea if it hit
them in the face. But these little minds seem to do quite well when it comes
to getting their work produced. I know a few gifted writers who keep
getting overlooked time and time again. It's particularly upsetting to see
these true artists with exciting works get passed by, while the hacks do
quite nicely, thank you. There are exciting American playwrights out there,
but unfortunately a lot of them have to go to places like England to get
their work done!
Gwen A Orel
I agree with everything you wrote-- but I think that the economic
element over here does account for more than the "hack" nature of
producers. In England, there is a lot of government money to
support theatres so that they don't *have* to make a profit with
new plays and consequently are much more willing to take a chance
with an unknown. It's also a culture that historically prizes
live performance. When there was a lot of money floating around
for theatre here, in the 70s, most of our now "canonized" pwts
like Mamet and Shepard had their start.
I'm not saying this is an *excuse*. Were I in charge of new play
development at a regional theatre, I'd commit to developing and
producing new plays locally, nnot just taking the best from
Louisville or wherever. But it is understandable why AD's are
scared.
I also think that the very fact that theatre has become marginilized
actually tends to attract a *very* elite, educated (and sadly,
older) audience. By contrast, film, which merely wants to make
a profit in most cases, does a much better job in portraying issues
of current importance/entertainment value than theatre does.
Gwen
Or...@aol.com wrote:
--
"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
I live in fear of not being misunderstood.-- Oscar wilde
rmcl...@forest.drew.edu
In article <19970430001...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, war...@aol.com (WardNA) writes:
<big snip>
> Another reason is that theater, no longer being mainstream, tends not to
> draw the finest minds to it, both in artists and audience.
The theatre still _draws_ many of the finest minds to it.
It doesn't do a good job of _supporting_ them, however,
so they leave.
--Rosemary McLaughlin
Gerda Grice
Yes, I'd certainly agree that the theatre still draws a lot of very fine
minds to itself. I don't think, though, that they all leave it--for want
of support or any other reason. Tom Stoppard and Caryl Churchill, for
instance, have not only stayed, but have managed to achieve very
considerable commercial success.
I think, too, that what we consider mainstream tends to depend on where
we are. What is mainstream in London, England or New York
city may seem like the epitome of far-outness in, say, some small town in
Ontario, Canada or the Bible belt of the U.S.
Gerda Grice
_________________________________________________________________
> To leave this mailing list, send mail to majo...@world.std.com
> with the message UNSUBSCRIBE PLAYS
>
Janez Vencelj
> Unfortunately you are right about this.
Janez