As Nick illuminated in the "Towne Hall Meeting" a few days ago, the current model in America is broken. The economic downturn is closing theatres left and right--some by hook, others by crook--and the arts seem destined for the meat grinder.
What the recession seems to be doing, in positive terms, is forcing theatres to decide what it is that they want to do. A "round up the wagons, it's going to be a bumpy ride," sort of thing. Instead of being "great AMERICAN institutions of culture", the economic climate may indeed force theatres to define their aesthetic, without the clause of "fiscal responsibility"--because that will from this point on, be an inherant value.
A survey of New Play Development programs around the country shows a sausage factory of readings, competitions, and festivals. All looking for THE next great American hit. The distopis of the 21st century may prove to be the end of "masterpieces", as Antonin Artaud put it. Widespread despair, financial ruin, and a broken system could be the necessary ingredients for theatre to rise from its ashes.
Showing posts with label regional theatre. Show all posts
Showing posts with label regional theatre. Show all posts
Thursday, May 13, 2010
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
It seems that it would come down to perception and presteige. As our department was not so long ago, the obsession to feed the New York Theatre machine seems one without end. In today's market, there is no greater compliment for a theatre (artistically or financially) than to have a work move from the regions into New York--let alone in a Broadway space. Thus, we have an "American" theatre within the "Regional" theatre movement--which makes about as much sense as lumping the various theatres across the Atlantic into "European" theatre.
It is seen through the staging of new work and the treatment of new playwrights. what better way to showcase a play's "viability" in the Broadway market than to stage it on a proscenium. If successful, then the play must only be transposed onto a new (and supposedly unaltering) performance space. Layered on like a static cling decal.
It is seen through the staging of new work and the treatment of new playwrights. what better way to showcase a play's "viability" in the Broadway market than to stage it on a proscenium. If successful, then the play must only be transposed onto a new (and supposedly unaltering) performance space. Layered on like a static cling decal.
Politics, perhaps
Despite the theorical musings of Brecht, Grotowski, Boal, et. al. over the 20th century, it is curious as to why no theatre has made broad strides to bring their forms into the mainstream. Could this ignorance be linked to the overt political stances and personal idosyncracies of their creators?
Brecht was nothing if not a communist. Boal's theatre illuminates oppression throughout any situations, however it arose out of a direct critique of capitolism. Grotowski's political stances were greatly outweighed by the view that he was a "mad genius".
Given that some regional theatres attempted to break away not only from commercial, Broadway tastes, but also their stage spaces, it seems logical that they would be willing to adopt more risque, more engaging forms of theatre. After all, aren't they supposed to be forming more intimate relationships with their respective communities? Why then are we twice as likely to see a production of My Fair Lady on the stage of "Regional Theatre A" than something like The Caucasian Chalk Circle, or another play revived through an interesting, more audience-engaging staging?
Brecht was nothing if not a communist. Boal's theatre illuminates oppression throughout any situations, however it arose out of a direct critique of capitolism. Grotowski's political stances were greatly outweighed by the view that he was a "mad genius".
Given that some regional theatres attempted to break away not only from commercial, Broadway tastes, but also their stage spaces, it seems logical that they would be willing to adopt more risque, more engaging forms of theatre. After all, aren't they supposed to be forming more intimate relationships with their respective communities? Why then are we twice as likely to see a production of My Fair Lady on the stage of "Regional Theatre A" than something like The Caucasian Chalk Circle, or another play revived through an interesting, more audience-engaging staging?
Tyrone Guthrie
It seemed to us that the only way of knowing a good play from a bad was to apply the test of time. Our programme would be classical; only those plays would be chosen which had seemed, to discriminating people for several generations [ital mine], to have serious merit, which had, in fact, withstood the test of time. This would still offer a very wide choice.....
Now the American theatre has not been long enough in existence to have developed its own classics. A distinctively American, as opposed to merely English-speaking, theatre only began to develop around the end of the First World War, at the beginning of the nineteen-twenties. Before that there certainly had been plays, written by American authors for American audiences, such as the works of Clyde Fitch. These, however, were heavily derivative from European and, naturally enough, especially from English-speaking sources....
If it be granted that fifty years is the absolute minimum of time required before a new work of art can wisely be regarded as a classic [ital mine], then it follows that the American theatre cannot as yet claim to have developed a classical dramatist.
All the same, many excellent dramatists have developed between 1920 and the present time. Several of these, it is reasonable to suppose, may be of potential classical status. In planning a theatre which we hoped to establish in an American city, and hoped might have a perceptible cultural influence in a particular region of America, it seemed neither sensible nor tactful to take such a doctrinaire view of classical status that American plays would have -- for at least another ten years -- to be omitted from the programme.
Moreover, Americans get exasperated by Europeans who point out how brief American history has been. That is is true does not make a fact more agreeable. Europeans use the seniority of their culture to give maddening little lectures intended of course for the betterment and instruction of a crude, young and, of course, totally materialistic society. The British, I am afraid, are the very worst offenders. We use the fact that Britain and America write a similar language, and that the British have been writing for a few centuries longer, to take an absurdly patronising attitude towards our young cousins, not only in cultural matters but in everything where so-called "maturity" of outlook and behaviour might be valuable.
We certainly did not want it to appear as if once again Britain were trying to instruct the colonists. It therefore seemed to us essential to include each season one American play of what we considered to be potential classical status; and to let it take its place in a programme of established classics.
-Guthrie
Now the American theatre has not been long enough in existence to have developed its own classics. A distinctively American, as opposed to merely English-speaking, theatre only began to develop around the end of the First World War, at the beginning of the nineteen-twenties. Before that there certainly had been plays, written by American authors for American audiences, such as the works of Clyde Fitch. These, however, were heavily derivative from European and, naturally enough, especially from English-speaking sources....
If it be granted that fifty years is the absolute minimum of time required before a new work of art can wisely be regarded as a classic [ital mine], then it follows that the American theatre cannot as yet claim to have developed a classical dramatist.
All the same, many excellent dramatists have developed between 1920 and the present time. Several of these, it is reasonable to suppose, may be of potential classical status. In planning a theatre which we hoped to establish in an American city, and hoped might have a perceptible cultural influence in a particular region of America, it seemed neither sensible nor tactful to take such a doctrinaire view of classical status that American plays would have -- for at least another ten years -- to be omitted from the programme.
Moreover, Americans get exasperated by Europeans who point out how brief American history has been. That is is true does not make a fact more agreeable. Europeans use the seniority of their culture to give maddening little lectures intended of course for the betterment and instruction of a crude, young and, of course, totally materialistic society. The British, I am afraid, are the very worst offenders. We use the fact that Britain and America write a similar language, and that the British have been writing for a few centuries longer, to take an absurdly patronising attitude towards our young cousins, not only in cultural matters but in everything where so-called "maturity" of outlook and behaviour might be valuable.
We certainly did not want it to appear as if once again Britain were trying to instruct the colonists. It therefore seemed to us essential to include each season one American play of what we considered to be potential classical status; and to let it take its place in a programme of established classics.
-Guthrie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)