Despite these advances in technology and a bend towards borgeois tastes, theatre audiences continued to take active roles as audience members well into the 20th century. Riots in New York area theatres in the 1800s are legendary. "Realistic" plays like J.M. Synge's Playboy of the Western World caused riots in Ireland. Despite its "realistic" appearance, it created a particular dialogue with Irish nationalists, who thought it too indicative of the derogatory "Paddies" of the British stage. Conversely, it was Synge who desired a theatre that presented realistic views of the Irish, along with a theatre that addressed Irish concerns. It was his hope that the play would hold a mirror up to his society and show its cracks. Thus it could be reasoned that this play established a particular, although not intentional, dialogue with its audience. It did not go out of its way to create a one-on-one dialogue with the audience, nor did it attempt to create it through clever asides.
As time progresses, and Ibsen's influence carries over to America, audiences become more and more apathetic in the theatre. Today's patrons would laugh at the thought of experiencing something so outrageous onstage that would end in an emotional donnybrook, let alone a physical one. How can this be so, if less than 100 years ago riots were all-too-frequent? Media saturation, a more "civilized" society, contentment in bourgeois values--these all offer explanations, but little solution, as they all lie outside of the theatre. The theatre has been attempting to address this through aesthetics--by offering more and more offensive material: punching of babies, beastiality, incest. Yet audiences fail to respond in a way that is freeing--in a way that is ancient. The question remains: how can--or even more simply--can the theatre respond?
No comments:
Post a Comment