The Deadly Theatre
1. Is
theatre nothing more than entertainment?
No it is not. In the
chapter The Deadly Theatre, Peter Brook says “There are occasional new
movements, good new writers and so on, but as a whole, the theatre not only fails
to elevate or instruct, it hardly even entertains.” Although it is rather
crude, I like Brook’s comparison of theatre as a whore. He says that whores
take money and go short on pleasure and this really made me realise what he was
trying to get to. Sometimes theatre can be so action packed, lively and bright,
but these kinds of shows are often just that. They don’t have any meaning or
deep thoughts and ideas that can be left within the audiences’ heads for days.
Boring plays, if actually paid attention to, tend to have deeper meanings and
messages within them that it would be considered better theatre. The first
example that comes to mind is The Last
Days of Judas Iscariot. If you were to take out all the meaning behind the
story, it becomes just a boring courtroom scene where neither the audience
member nor the actor wants to be. But because it has such a thought provoking
and meaning message, the actors have a drive and passion to tell the story and
it’s this passion that captures the audience’s attention.
Art as a whole must be
made to express oneself but while still keeping the viewers in mind.
2. How does Deadly
Theatre take easily to Shakespeare?
Brook pretty much sums this up when he
says that people “confuse a sort of intellectual satisfaction with the true
experience”. I truly think that since everybody
studies Shakespeare in schools it can get really boring (and technically I’m
supposed to love it since I’m a literature and theatre student) and people
loose the appreciation of Shakespeare’s art and pure genius use of words.
People always redo Shakespeare plays the way that they have always been and how
they are “meant” to be, but this makes it lose it’s meaning and relatability
(isn’t a word but I can’t think of any other way to phrase it) to the audience.
His plays were written 400 years ago after all! Different time. Different
culture.
3. Is
"boringness" a certain guarantee of a worthwhile event?
No it doesn’t. I think that an artist is
a true artist when they can find the perfect balance between boringness and
meaning. Thay have to be able to properly get their message across without
losing the attention of the spectators while trying to avoid making it too
capturing that it loses its meaning and purpose.
4. What
role does mediocrity play?
As I have said before. Artists have to
find a perfect balance. Mediocrity can make people lose interest in the
performance but too much “over the top”ness can make overwhelm the audience.
5. What
is the difference between passing down "meaning" and "manner?
To me, ‘meaning’ is when the actor knows
and understand the messages and emotions and is able to convey them to the
audience through this understanding. I think that manner, however, is the
method in which the actor chooses to use to convey this message. I’m not entirely
sure whether this is correct or not, but I feel as though if an actor doesn’t
have the meaning then he is doing nothing but reading the lines in his script.
If he does understand meaning, no matter the manner, he will always do an
amazing performance.
6. Is it
true that "the best dramatists explain the least"? Can you think of
some examples from plays that you have seen or read?
I feel as though if a
dramatist needed to explain himself or herself for everything they do and every
message they’re trying to get across, then they are not very good at what they
do and don’t understand human empathy (?). If the audience is able to
understand everything, however, without having to have it explained to them,
then that shows that the work of the dramatist is strong and shows that he or
she has a good understanding of human nature, empathy and the nature of their
audience.
7. How
can you go from Deadly Theatre to Living Theatre as an actor?
Trying to truly understand the idea and message that
the writer is trying to get his audience to understand. To know the author and
the context of the production. (??)
8. How
did the Peking Opera lose its connectedness to the life of the society around it?
“The
gap between the original Peking Opera and the life of the society today became
too great”. I think that no matter how much you try to preserve cultures, it
will always change. The younger generations who go into performing this art
form will grow up in a different culture than performers would’ve generations
before. The forced continuity of this art form will make it lose it’s meaning
in the modern world.
9. At
the heart of the meaning of Living Theater: "Theater is always a
self-destructive art, and is always written on the wind." What
is your interpretation of this?
I think that it means that it’s a theatre that changes
with time and reflects the lives of the people performing and watching it. It’s
a theatre that had real meaning and is true to the artist and isn’t forced. It
looks back to past and alters it to suit today (whether telling the story of
the past or recreating another play). The Line “written on the wind” makes me
think that it really is a reflection of the writer and is written on a lot of
experiences and inspirations that the artist encounters.
10. According
to Brook, what should be influencing theater at all times?
The
true messaged that the writer is trying to convey and staying true to that. The
ways and culture of the audience and understanding what is appropriate to
present. I feel like that’s what Peter Brook is trying to say. I feel as though
people must stay true to the message and ideals of the play.
11. Please
add two of your own questions for the rest of the chapter.
Is
deadly theatre necessarily a really bad thing?
Is
it possible to totally rid deadly theatre? Would it be “beneficial” to theatre
or is it needed to be able to differentiate types of theatre?
No comments:
Post a Comment