making theatre "mainstream"...
Fri, 26 May 2006, 01:12 pmabbz41 posts in thread
making theatre "mainstream"...
Fri, 26 May 2006, 01:12 pmHey all,
Abbey here, and a newbie to the forum. There's been a question on my mind...based on limited brain-picking from general public, and finding the general belief is theatre is not a "mainstream" source of entertainment the way rock concerts, movies and partying on a weekend at a club/bar/pub are...so....
Why is it that theatre is not "mainstream" the way film is? I believe to a larger extent it has to do with accessibility and conveneince, but there must be other reasons. Things like:
Is it because theatre going is generally seen as a "high-risk" venture? Because the stories are seen to be not as good? People do not want to confront the live actors and the potential breakdown of the fourth wall into personal space...? What is your opinion?
And yet another question: any thoughts on how to make theatre more mainstream?
yep, cheap.
Sat, 27 May 2006, 09:57 pmI should have clarified that I was talking about the majority of the 'rock' industry- which is your pub and club scene.
and yes, these are relatively cheap events.
outside of the top tier of the industry most of them are making nothing, or in fact are losing money, just like all the other artists out there.
the events you describe of the big groups don't fit this category, and yet continue to prove my very point, if you consider that 'cheap' is a relative term, related to likely return. (it IS about getting money back):-)
You don't pay $100+ to see a local group, or even often a national ozzie act. You go to U2, Bon Jovi, Fleetwood Mac...Where the audience feel safe, they already know the music, and the promoter putting his/her hundreds of thousands is already certain they will get a big house/profit. Why? Because the group has massive radio play, has sold tens of thousands thousands if not millions of albums, and have massive profile.
In other words, they are an easy sale, and you can get the big bucks from the audience that makes the gig affordable.
relatively speaking, these gigs ARE cheap for the companies putting them together. cheap on a mine site can mean millions of dollars, in theatre it is much less!
The other point easy to miss is- these groups also only play once every now and then- how many times have U2 been to Oz, let alone Perth for instance? I don' think you'd find people willing to shell out hundreds to see U2 every 3 months for very long. Not unless they kept creating new and exciting material.
Govt funding:
The thing for all artists to remember with govt funding is that it is an investment of the taxpayers' money. Therefore those issues that the most taxpayers scream about will get the best results from govt policy. Nothing will change this in a democracy. It's one of the faults of the system- civilised Mob Rule.
I know it is an unpopular thing to say, but a large sector of the arts industry as a whole spends more time being unhappy about funding than they do actually engaging these taxpayers. I think we all as an industry- theatre, music, dance etc.- need to continue engaging the general public, educating everyone we come into contact with as to the value of what we do. until the public scream, ministers cannot/will not do anything, it just won't get them votes. So I remain convinced that most of us are barking up the wrong tree by railing at our ministers. Rail at your local community! ;-)
And most important- we need to actually create art that is worthy of a priveliged position in society.
It's not an easy battle, but hell- it's better than sitting in an office writing reports and being in meetings. don't you think?!
and yes, maybe this would be good to submit. anyone?
Nev
It's the simple things stupid...