Reality ?!
Fri, 13 June 2003, 01:17 pmWalter Plinge8 posts in thread
Reality ?!
Fri, 13 June 2003, 01:17 pmHow many people have actually received faultless direction from a director ?
What came first - the director or the actor ?
What came first - the director or the actor ?
Re: a bum on a seat
Mon, 16 June 2003, 09:19 amTomás Ford wrote:
>
> Yeah, but Craig, you could still have a performance without
> an audience. Hell, I know I've done that in the past and
> still defined the work as theatre, even if only to save face
> with myself. Actually, most of the influential theatre
> practitioners of the 20th century reckon process is more
> important than the end product, but still consider what they
> do to be "theatre" and I suppose the next step away from that
> to eliminate the performance alltogether and wheeee! Look as
> Tom digs himself even deeper into the rabbit hole of
> introspective navel gazing :) How fun :)
G'day Tomas !
I understand the saving face bit, coz I've been in that same land in front of an empty venue (!); but if there is literally NO ONE to watch, I can't define that as theatre. A performer doing a performance without an audience is just a rehearsal. Yes, the process (or rehearsal) can be arguably more important than the end result....but it's only theatre when we reach that end result and put it in front of someone.
There are some theatrical processes that don't have a final production as the end goal....I'm imagining a workshop where actors are doing scenes and getting feedback as a learning process...but there is always SOMEONE who completes the triangle as the observer, even if it is just the other workshop participants. Then you have a small theatrical event as I defined it, without necessarily needing a paying audience.
(Note also that that is an example of theatre at its most basic, that may not necessarily include a writer or director, but still fills the other requirements and can be an entertaining experience.)
Mahalo,
Craig
[%sig%]
>
> Yeah, but Craig, you could still have a performance without
> an audience. Hell, I know I've done that in the past and
> still defined the work as theatre, even if only to save face
> with myself. Actually, most of the influential theatre
> practitioners of the 20th century reckon process is more
> important than the end product, but still consider what they
> do to be "theatre" and I suppose the next step away from that
> to eliminate the performance alltogether and wheeee! Look as
> Tom digs himself even deeper into the rabbit hole of
> introspective navel gazing :) How fun :)
G'day Tomas !
I understand the saving face bit, coz I've been in that same land in front of an empty venue (!); but if there is literally NO ONE to watch, I can't define that as theatre. A performer doing a performance without an audience is just a rehearsal. Yes, the process (or rehearsal) can be arguably more important than the end result....but it's only theatre when we reach that end result and put it in front of someone.
There are some theatrical processes that don't have a final production as the end goal....I'm imagining a workshop where actors are doing scenes and getting feedback as a learning process...but there is always SOMEONE who completes the triangle as the observer, even if it is just the other workshop participants. Then you have a small theatrical event as I defined it, without necessarily needing a paying audience.
(Note also that that is an example of theatre at its most basic, that may not necessarily include a writer or director, but still fills the other requirements and can be an entertaining experience.)
Mahalo,
Craig
[%sig%]