Making Theater Matter II
For my first post on the subject, simply scroll down. I'd recommend reading it for context.
I've read Helen Radice and john shaw's thoughtful and impassioned posts, along with ACD's counter arguments. And I'm beginning to have two issues with this discussion. The first is that ACD wants a concrete answer to an ephemeral question. He seems to want to know what specifically and concretely about theater's aesthetics makes it a worthwhile art. But if you flip this question on its head-- why go to movies? what specifically about their aesthetics is more worthwhile than theater? I find that question equally hard to answer.
And this is how we get to issue numero dos... ultimately, this debate doesn't really come down to aesthetics etc. at all. This is about taste; experiencial taste rather than artistic taste.
The live theaterical experience has a unique value that one cannot get from film for me largely because as an audience member you are part of a process while vis-a-vis film you are a consumer and reactor to a product. As George talks about briefly in his posts, and as I eluded to earlier, by sitting at an audience, you are helping to shape the experience for yourself (and everyone around you) while attending the show. That is an enormous responsibility and an incredible gift. Or burden, I suppose, if you're not into it. I prefer being part of a process, and I think George, Helen and Jack do too. I think AC Douglas might have more of an appreciation for finished product, which tends to bore me (one of many reasons I'm a director not an actor, when it becomes productized, I'm gone). He's not right or wrong about this, it's simply, well, a matter of taste.
Products don't need us. If we won't buy/view/consume/react to them, some other schmo will. Process on the other hand, process needs us, it just doesn't always know it. I like to go where I'm valued.
Comments