My Theatre Theory

Peter Brook's book The Empty Space was very interesting to read and try to understand all the types of theatre he was describing. I did not quite understand his views about all the types of theatre but I related to “The Holy Theatre.” Brook describes “The Holy Theatre” as “the notion that the stage is a place where the invisible can appear.” I associate with this type of theatre because I believe that theatre is a magical art form in which anything is possible. I think that with theatre and especially on a live stage, that nothing is impossible to convey to the audience. Theatre is a place where the audience has to suspend their beliefs for a certain period of time anyway. I also agree with Brook and “The Holy Theatre” that theatre should explore the construction and deconstruction of language. As a society we have gotten lazy about language and create many slang forms of words to express to each other through texts; however, we never explore why we deconstruct our language and what that means to our society.

I like his idea that theatre should be stripped down to the bare minimum to only be about the relationship of the actor and the audience. I think that his ideas conflict with the new forms of media because he wanted theatre to be bare and minimalistic. The new forms of media contribute to what Brook called the “Deadly Theatre” because it destroys the relationship between the actor and the audience. I also found his idea of “Rough Theatre” to be very interesting and actually very valid. Brook describes “Rough Theatre” as “salt, sweat, noise, smell: the theatre that's not in a theatre, the theatre on carts, on wagons...” and he proceeds to describe rough theatre as theatre happening anywhere and encompassing audience involvement.

In conjunction with Peter Brook's view of theatre, my own views about what theatre offers that no other art form can offer is simple: it provides a live dialogue between the actor and audience about current societal and political issues. Other art forms only represent one side of the issue or message that it is trying to convey and does not allow for the audience or spectator to really engage in what is being portrayed, why, and their personal views and reactions to what is being presented. On the other hand, other forms of art offer a stronger message rather that theatre with its dialogue with the audience. Other forms of art offer its own interpretations of the issues of society and provide its take on how to solve the problems or what to do about them. It creates a solid and concrete look into the issue or problem and its solution. Theatre asks for the audience to come up with the solution and only provides an insight into the situation, issue, or problem.

Theatre is having a hard time surviving in the new technological age of more advanced entertainment technology. People are more interested in the movie versions and filmed acting rather than raw, live theatre. I find it very exhilarating to go see a live performance with live actors in a setting where anything can happen. Theatre is more necessary now that these new forms of technology are developing in the movie industry. The invention of CGI and animation special effects creates the live actor to be pushed into the background. It limits the possibilities of performances for the actors because they are confined to the animation and only their voice will be portrayed in the final product. CGI is a bit better than regular animation because the technology still uses the facial expressions and movements of the live actors. However, live theatre is where the dialogue of actor and spectator is more active because both are right in front of each other trying to convince the other of their own views.

Adaptations of movies, plays, and musicals are varying widely with the current wave of new technological advances and the wave of interest in musicals. Musicals are now being produced into films because there is more interest in the film industry. The producers know that more people will attend movies than plays. In addition, in terms of accessibility, more people can go to the movie theatre to see a movie that is playing everywhere rather than seeing a play that might or might not be playing in their town in the next year or so. The trend of adaptations has affected theatre in a negative way, in my opinion. More people are going to see the filmed adaptations which may or may not relate strongly to the play. Therefore, people get certain ideas of the play through watching the movie, but those ideas are wrong. For example, the Tim Burton version of Sweeney Todd has its own particular theme that is a little slice of what the musical stage version was trying to portray. Burton portrayed Sweeney Todd as an evil mastermind who wants revenge. The musical stage version is more about the character being anyone in the crowd in London at that time.

I do not think that the film adaptations are healthy for theatre; however, I feel that other play adaptations of plays will help theatre thrive. The film adaptations desecrate the theatrical aspects, themes, lighting, and sound of live theatre. It creates a spectacle to bedazzle the audience about the new products of technology. Most film adaptations do not stay true to the story, themes, and text of the original play which creates a dissolution of the original story and text. Other play adaptations will help theatre thrive because it creates the atmosphere that theatre is a living, breathing, and ongoing process that creates social change to challenge the audience to create the social change in the world.

The artistic criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of the adaptations should not be box office success, but rather the affect it has on the audience. It should overall have the same effect on the audience as the play or the original form, but perhaps raise more questions and more awareness of the social or political issue or message it is trying to convey. The adaptations should also stick to the original plot, characters, and story line in order to convey the same message. The original playwright or screenwriter wrote the material to portray a special message that should not be skewed because it is their original work. An idea to help evaluate the adaptation would be to have a viewer poll or some sort of way to check in with the audience to see if they understood the message. The most important part of evaluating the effectiveness of the adaptation is to check in with the audience and see how they have responded to what was portrayed in the film or play.

The “democratic” media such as Youtube and other websites in which people can upload videos have made adaptations very accessible to everyone. People have the freedom to adapt their favorite movie, play, or music video in order to taper it to the message that they received from the original production. The trend is a positive trend because it forces the audience to respond to the message they have received and create the ongoing dialogue between actor and audience that Peter Brook mentions. The negative points of the media is the way in which the media is used to broadcast theatre and film at no cost to other people. The writer's strike dealt with the issues of getting money for those types of broadcasting the film or play. It causes everyone that was involved in the production of the film or play to lose money because people can see the film or play at no cost which does not pay the production team or the actors. However, the use of the media to portray adaptations of everyday people's opinions of plays, movies, and music videos is the ongoing dialogue that will cause theatre and film to thrive.