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 ?
Walter PlingeFri, 13 June 2003, 01:17 pm
How 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 ?
LabrugFri, 13 June 2003, 03:57 pm
Re: Reality ?!
Isn't a harsh query? Faultless direction? That can be very much one's point of view. One actor's Perfect Direction is another's Hell on Earth.
As for which came first, neither. They both appeared together. A director needs someone or something to direct and an actor needs to be directed, even if the director is the actor themself.
Circular Arguments Are Fun.
Jeff "We all fall down" Watkins
[%sig%]
As for which came first, neither. They both appeared together. A director needs someone or something to direct and an actor needs to be directed, even if the director is the actor themself.
Circular Arguments Are Fun.
Jeff "We all fall down" Watkins
[%sig%]
Walter PlingeFri, 13 June 2003, 04:17 pm
Re: Reality ?!
LAMDA wrote:
>
> What came first - the director or the actor ?
I think without a writer they'd both be pretty screwed.
>
> What came first - the director or the actor ?
I think without a writer they'd both be pretty screwed.
Walter PlingeFri, 13 June 2003, 05:01 pm
Re: Reality ?!
Didnt we already have this conversation?
Director or Actor?
Am i going insane?
Heres one for ya!....
What is a question?
Jones.
ps. Leah is right again, the script came first...then the venue.
Director or Actor?
Am i going insane?
Heres one for ya!....
What is a question?
Jones.
ps. Leah is right again, the script came first...then the venue.
crgwllmsFri, 13 June 2003, 05:12 pm
Re: Reality bites
Jones wrote:
> ps. Leah is right again, the script came first...then the
> venue.
Not sure I agree. Search back among the posts for my essay with "fire triangle theory" in the title.
All you need to create theatre is a performer, a performance, and an audience. (And without ALL three of those present, it's not theatre.)
Things like venues, scripts, & directors are all highly desirable improvements, but still rank lower in necessity...you CAN have successful theatre that doesn't necessarily incorporate one or more of those elements.
Cheers
Craig
[%sig%]
> ps. Leah is right again, the script came first...then the
> venue.
Not sure I agree. Search back among the posts for my essay with "fire triangle theory" in the title.
All you need to create theatre is a performer, a performance, and an audience. (And without ALL three of those present, it's not theatre.)
Things like venues, scripts, & directors are all highly desirable improvements, but still rank lower in necessity...you CAN have successful theatre that doesn't necessarily incorporate one or more of those elements.
Cheers
Craig
[%sig%]
crgwllmsFri, 13 June 2003, 05:18 pm
Re: Faulty question
LAMDA wrote:
>
> How many people have actually received faultless direction
> from a director ?
I could just as easily switch the onus around and ask, "How many actors have actually received their direction faultlessly?"
Nothing's without it's faults. You don't even get faultless direction from a compass!
That's not the point. It doesn't have to be faultless, it just has to be GOOD.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
>
> How many people have actually received faultless direction
> from a director ?
I could just as easily switch the onus around and ask, "How many actors have actually received their direction faultlessly?"
Nothing's without it's faults. You don't even get faultless direction from a compass!
That's not the point. It doesn't have to be faultless, it just has to be GOOD.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
tomasfordSun, 15 June 2003, 07:46 pm
Re: Reality bites
>> All you need to create theatre is a performer, a performance, and an audience. (And without ALL three of those present, it's not theatre.)
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 :)
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
Aloha,
Tomás Ford
actorwriterpoetrantermusoraverartwanker(thesortofguythatgetsoffonthisidecipherablelowercaselackofspacesrubbish)
http://descendhere.00band.com
[%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 :)
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
Aloha,
Tomás Ford
actorwriterpoetrantermusoraverartwanker(thesortofguythatgetsoffonthisidecipherablelowercaselackofspacesrubbish)
http://descendhere.00band.com
[%sig%]
crgwllmsMon, 16 June 2003, 09:19 am
Re: a bum on a seat
Tomás 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%]