Going to see theatre

just somethings i thought of last night:

personally - i do not go to the theatre often. i can't drive myself around and i don't have any money. :-o

is it as important that actors go to see theatre as well as act in theatre(or whatever they want to act in)?
what are everyone elses views on this matter?

i act, sing, dance, play 2 instuments and am involved with a couple of theatre companys as well as help run one.

as a part of learning about the performing arts - should young actors go to theatre to help them learn? does attending theatre make a better actor?

i would love to hear other thoughts!

xxAmanda

Im the same as you Amanda....

I assume since we have both been reasonably successful so far that it really cant matter that much.....

Although it really is kind of a shame...that we cant even support our fellow actors - but yes money is a problem

Also where is the bloody time as well?

Rosie

Amanda Tyler wrote:
-------------------------------
just somethings i thought of last night:

personally - i do not go to the theatre often. i can't drive myself around and i don't have any money. :-o

is it as important that actors go to see theatre as well as act in theatre(or whatever they want to act in)?
what are everyone elses views on this matter?

i act, sing, dance, play 2 instuments and am involved with a couple of theatre companys as well as help run one.

as a part of learning about the performing arts - should young actors go to theatre to help them learn? does attending theatre make a better actor?

i would love to hear other thoughts!

xxAmanda

Sorry, but I have to comment here
Art cannot operate from inside a vacuum. If you do not see theatre then your repetoir of possibility will be very limited (no matter how talented you are). Give your art a chance - get out and see some Theatre - not just your friends - but save your pennies and get to see some of the amazing international acts that come to every Australian city during festival time. (this is of course asuming you are in Australia!)

Seeing what other artists have to offer will put you in position of power, it will fire your imagination and open up a world of possibility that you never even dreamed existed.

Having talent in this industry is not enough. Talented artists are a dime a dozen. You need to have a talent for talent. Don't sabotage yours. Learn from people who are more experienced than yourself.

INDI

i aggree with you rosie - there isn't much time, is there?
the only theatre i have been to recently was a school production!

i really want to know what othewrs think - it is interesting to hear what others think people need for acting.

amanda

Very well said Indi.

Although I don't think Amanda and I were suggesting that we are of such a level of talent that we do not need to widen our scope with a wide variety of theatre other than our own.

Even though I am not in a position to enjoy the wonderful variety of theatre that Australia has to offer very often, this only being due to time and money constraints, I can certainly acknowledge what benefits such an exposure would have.

If I were in more of a position to attend more productions, I would certainly love nothing more...... perhaps then I would not be "sabotaging" my "talent" as you have suggested that some of us may be doing....(for the record I never suggested that I was talented!)

Ufortunately in the meantime I will have to contend with the various workshops I attend and extensive and stimulating direction from the companies I work with....

I hope I can see Singing in the Rain though.........
Nah, thats a must!

Rosie

By all means see as much live theatre as you can manage if that's what you want, but don't believe that it is a necessary part of improving your craft.

There is a real danger in becoming theatrically introverted if you allow observed theatre to be the major influence of your own development.

Theatre is all about interpreting life. This can be observed anywhere at any time, and is the best way to keep your craft fresh and original.

Many amateur groups resort to depending on elements of performance that they've recalled from other productions, which does little to support their own production, and very often results in the production being nothing more than a parody, and the performers being nothing more than parrots.

Sol scribed subtley:
------------------------
*By all means see as much live theatre as you can manage if that's what you want, but don't believe that it is a necessary part of improving your craft.

Ah, but it IS. Noone involved in theatre would BE involved in theatre without being exposed to SOME aspect of theatre. As Indi so correctly observed, art does not exist in a vacuum. Nothing does.

*There is a real danger in becoming theatrically introverted if you allow observed theatre to be the major influence of your own development.

Indeed. It is surely up to the perception of teh individual performer/artist to judge where the line between inspiration and plagiarism is drawn. I, for one, have learnt all I know (which is relatively sod all) from observing the work of others, distilling the elements of each and (hopefully) re-interpreting these elements in mine own image. But I wax messianic, here....

*Theatre is all about interpreting life. This can be observed anywhere at any time, and is the best way to keep your craft fresh and original.

Absolutely. But I would posit that the best way to hone your craft is to expose yourself to the work of others, and objectively measure YOUR work against it. It's difficult work; but it is this HONEST struggle that is makes the whole sordid business of theatre worth pursuing.

*Many amateur groups resort to depending on elements of performance that they've recalled from other productions, which does little to support their own production, and very often results in the production being nothing more than a parody, and the performers being nothing more than parrots.

Yes, yes, sadly yes!! Can we not learn from these mistakes and change our methodology to be more open-minded with how we interpret oft-produced works??

Eliot

"art does not exist in a vacuum."

I think the point being made was that purely theatrical observation IS a form of vacuum.

"It is surely up to the perception of teh individual performer/artist to judge where the line between inspiration and plagiarism is drawn."

But wouldn't you agree that "perception" could be clouded and narrowed if "observed theatre" is not balanced by NON-theatrical observations?

"Noone involved in theatre would BE involved in theatre without being exposed to SOME aspect of theatre"

With due respect, this is not quite true. Theatre is often simply a working ground for performers and not necessarily the inspiration. Many artists come to live theatre simply because they have the urge to perform. This urge does not have to be a product of previously observed theatre of any sort.

Think of the "schoolyard clown" of your childhood. Was he/she behaving that way because of a play they had seen, or simply because that's the way they are?

Later on in life, that "clown" may discover the concept of theatre and realise "Hey, I can behave this way legitimately through live theatre!"

I was a schoolyard clown. Now I'm legitimate!

exactly....
if i had the time, the car and the money - i would go and see theatre so much more often then i do.
i LOVE to go for a night out to the theatre - but unfortunatley, i can't do it as often as i want to.

Amanda

glynn gleefully garnered:
-------------------------------
*I think the point being made was that purely theatrical observation IS a form of vacuum.

Yes- and does art exist there?? Nope. QED.

*But wouldn't you agree that "perception" could be clouded and narrowed if "observed theatre" is not balanced by NON-theatrical observations?

I would. It is this balance that is vital.

*Theatre is often simply a working ground for performers and not necessarily the inspiration. Many artists come to live theatre simply because they have the urge to perform. This urge does not have to be a product of previously observed theatre of any sort.

But how would they know theatre exists without having been exposed to the concept of theatre, at the very least?

I too was a school yard clown. Most on this site will tell I still am... I've just been expelled....

Eliot

Years ago I saw (on TV) a good feature on this, albeit angled at professionals.
In a few words the consensus advice was:-
watch any production (TV is Free) and pretend you were the director/stage manager/lead actor/supporting actor/lighting/makeup etc. etc..

Heard an interesting interview with Morgan Freeman the other day - the last thing he said was
I never stiop watching other actors perform. I improve my craft by watching people who are better at it than I am.

If it's good enough for Morgan...
INDI

Indi, please don't misinterpret the point being made:

Amanda's post asked if attending theatre makes a better actor.

The view some of us are supporting is "not necessarily". And sometimes it can in fact be the downfall of an actor.

Yes, taking inspiration from other works is useful, but to believe that it is the BEST way, or even a NECESSARY way, to improve yourself, can be a restricting attitude.

Art can be inspired by art, but it shouldn't go as far as simply imitating it.

If Morgan Freeman learns solely from other performers, fine. But what works for him does not necessarily work for everyone. If fact, it DOESN'T work for everyone.

Further to all this, I wonder how many great performers have taken their inspiration purely from other works. And of those great performers, I wonder how many would be even GREATER after letting themselves be inspired through other means.

...Besides which (and I'm not trying to be facetious, as I have nothing against Freeman at all) but there are a handful of "big" actors of the same school which include Harrison Ford, Arnold Swarzenegger, Sean Connery, Mel Gibson and Morgan Freeman, all of whom tend to play the same stock character in most of their films.

Is this perhaps a good reason for Morgan to disregard his own advice?

Eliot enthusiastically exclaimed:

"But how would they know theatre exists without having been exposed to the concept of theatre, at the very least?"

Exposure does not automatically lead to inspiration.

Personally, the fact that I was an annoying "clown" lead someone to suggest I put it to good use on stage instead of in the classroom.

Glynn
Why are you deliberately misunderstanding me?
At no time have I suggested that seeing theatre should be your only source of inspiration or training. At no time have I suggested that you should try and copy what you see others doing.

I am simply saying you should use it as a tool to enrich your artistic output and increase your range of possibilities.

Amanda asked if seeing theatre will make you a better actor

Yes it will!

How can it not?

I will stand by that.

INDI

Hey Amanda,

Entering this debate in the latter stages I unfortunately run the risk of rehashing things which have already been said. But i think it is an extremely interesting question and besides a bit of rehashing here and there has never hurt anyone. Could I support those who have already suggested a synthesis of the two basic arguments.

Art is inevitably fueled by actual life experiences, but presenting these experiences using the medium of theatre in a way that evokes a response is indeed an artform. Moreover it is one that is learnt and can only be learnt by watching others partake in/excel at/screw up.

I think a talented actor/director or whatever, is one who can not only interpret what they see around them, but more importantly, communicate their interpretation to others. If you lack the means and the tools to express how you feel, in the context of theatre, the experiences are of little use.

When asked which film school he had attended, Quentin Tarantino replied "I didn't. I just watched films."

Dear Indi,

I'm not misunderstanding you at all. I never claimed you to have stated that theatre should be the only source. But that idea has been expressed in other posts.

If you are genuinely interested in what I have said, please read my posts again. I'm not here to contradict anyone.

If you wish to hold to the idea that seeing theatre WILL make a better actor, then fine. But I don't see that to be a definite thing.

Yes, it CAN. But many times it DOESN'T. I've seen this myself. Plenty of talented people have got trapped into gradually becoming reliant totally on the work of peers for inspiration, which is fine if they wish to raise their skills to the expectations of their own peerage. But there can be a lot more to live up to outside that square.

And that can make the difference between a standard talent and a great talent.

You say "how can it not?" Please read the post by Sol for your answer. It's simple but true, and it applies not just to amateur theatre.

"it is [an artform] that is learnt and can only be learnt by watching others partake in/excel at/screw up"

Well, actually, it's best learnt by partaking in/excelling at and screwing up yourself! No one appreciates the affect of a good or bad move like the one doing the moving!

IÂ’ve just read all the threads to this argument with keen interest, and am going to respond to many previous points in this one reply.


I think part of this debate is semantics. Some say, “going to the theatre WILL make a better actor”. Others say, “not necessarily”, and that, “observing LIFE”, is equally or more valuable.

OBSERVING is an important word here. You can go to see theatre, and still NOT observe. In fact, often thatÂ’s the desired outcome of some artformsÂ…you go to see the film or play to get lost in the story and characters, not to really think about why or how it was achieved.
You can also live LIFE without observing it. But just being out there is NOT enough to make you a good actor.
And even just observing is not enough.

One of Sol’s posts said, “Theatre is all about interpreting life. This can be observed anywhere at any time, and is the best way to keep your craft fresh and original.”
But life, as you encounter it on the street, isn’t necessarily theatre. What is it that you are learning out there that is automatically improving your “craft”?

The craft itself is something quite separate from life; it is intelligent OBSERVATION, INTERPRETATION of that observation, and then the REALISATION of that interpretation in your art.

The point of going to theatre (if your purpose is to learn) is to witness these three elements; form your own opinion of how effectively they have been demonstrated; and use this information, in the light of your own response, to improve your own process (of observation, interpretation and realization).

If we understand this as being the process involved, and not just “going to see” theatre, then it becomes harder to agree with the ones who claim that observing theatre “is not a necessary part of improving your craft”. (That’s not to say that it’s an easy task, and obviously some learn better than others.)
Whether you are WATCHING someone “partake in/excel at/screw up” a performance or actually doing that YOURSELF is not the point: both are valid and necessary opportunities to learn. But no learning can be demonstrated without going through this three part process.



Another part of the problem in this debate is: How do we define THEATRE? As soon as there’s a performer/audience relationship, you could say we have theatre to be observed. It’s inside. It’s outside. So both the “stage” and the “life” arguments become less relevant. But the “observing” argument wins hands down. Yes, you CAN learn how to be an entertainer by playing with your nephew, or being the “class clown”. But in my opinion, that is still “going to the theatre”. You are observing things like character, timing, delivery, inflection, body language…etc etc…and gauging it by audience reaction.



There also seems to be some debate about the merits/evils of IMITATION. Imitating what you observe is one part of being an actor. But donÂ’t confuse this with replicating a performance or mimicking an actor (i.e. in his flawed Morgan Freeman argument, Glynn has repeatedly confused the word INSPIRATION with IMITATION). Why is it assumed that imitation is automatically a good OR a bad thing? And why even assume that imitation is what you learn from watching others?

The argument has gone along the lines of ,“watching theatre will make you imitate stuff you see and that’s bad”. Taking inspiration from other works, learning from other performers, is NOT the same as copying them or rehashing their ideas, nor does it necessarily lead down that path. Can you not be inspired (I know I have, and learned much in the process) by a truly hideous performance? It’s always easier to be a critic, and so some of my theatrical observations have inspired me to try for the exact OPPOSITE of what I saw! Or what about when observations I have made have helped me to recognize errors I was making or could have made; and so my craft was able to improve although the context was entirely unrelated to the performance I witnessed?
Great breakthroughs in any field of endeavor are never made in isolation…to be bold/new/original you at least need to be aware of what has gone before, what is contemporary – otherwise you risk reinventing the wheel. Isn’t this an important thing that can only be learned by observing others?

And the flip side is: sometimes a performance is great WITHOUT noticeably being original or different. WhatÂ’s wrong with that?

If the only way to test this debate was to manufacture two identical actors, and let one observe and study a multitude of performances, while the other learns acting in an environment void of performance, which one do you think would be likely to win an Oscar? (Okay, winning an Oscar might not be an accurate measure of success, but the point is still valid).


Amanda’s original question was, “should young actors go to theatre to help them learn? Does attending theatre make a better actor? “

What if you took out the word “actor” and put in “doctor”? How does a doctor learn stuff without observing others in the craft? Sure, they can learn a lot from books, or trial and error (!) and they can take classes where they might be TOLD how to operate…but it eventually comes down to keen observation, some interpretation (diagnosis) and realization (under the knife). True, WHERE this observation comes from doesn’t matter…so maybe it CAN be learned from life experience (if the doctor happens to have a heart attack, or witnesses one, that must be a good thing?) …but I’m sure you’d rather have your open heart surgery operated by a doctor who has observed another in performance.



The only other thing I want to take issue with is Sol’s comment, “…nothing more than a parody, and the performers being nothing more than parrots.”

As a major player with Barking Gecko for 13 years, I must ask you if possible to please not put down the powerful performance potential of portraying a parrot..!




Unfortunately, as it so happens, I donÂ’t actually go to the theatre that often, either.

The reason? No money.

The reason for that? I work in theatre!



Cheers,
Craig

I do believe Craig's most excellent post is THE final word on the matter.

Eliot