classics vs new work
Sat, 12 Mar 2005, 02:05 pmWalter Plinge3 posts in thread
classics vs new work
Sat, 12 Mar 2005, 02:05 pmI, for one, regard the continued presence of classics on our performance roster to be an unqualified necessity for the continued evolution of theatre, for two reasons:
Firstly, the plays themselves are - by definition of being defined as a classic - superb examples of the craft of theatrical storytelling.
Secondly, for the above reason (among others) they continue to provide an incalculable inspiration to scores of contemporary story-tellers, and as such should always be accessible to the widest possible audience - in their ideal form (i.e.: on the stage)
Having said that, I am by no means taking sides on this issue. I also enjoy finding exciting new plays to stage, and am always blown away by the re-invention of ideas that contemporary playwrights display. I recently had the opportunity to stage a brand-spanking new play, with the playwright involved in the process all the way through casting, rehearsals, and up to opening night. It was a terrific experience. Good plays are good plays, and that experience proved it to me. Whether it was written yesterday or 500 years ago *should* be beside the point.
But lately I am finding an increasingly bolshy divide growing between the "classics" camp and the "new works" camp.
Is it just me, or is this divide an artifical construct? Is it even necessary? Is the tide of our theatrical community moving in the wrong direction simply for the sake of moving *somewhere*?
Is it fair that in the assessment process for funding bodies and hosting venues, that simply having a new work is a justification in and of itself for the submission to be fast-tracked, and yet classics need to demonstrate some "new way of working" in order to be considered?
Should companies with a stated aim of developing new work be required to stage the odd classic, simply for the sake of balance and inclusiveness, not to mention genuine cultural diversity?
Thoughts, anyone?
dm.
Firstly, the plays themselves are - by definition of being defined as a classic - superb examples of the craft of theatrical storytelling.
Secondly, for the above reason (among others) they continue to provide an incalculable inspiration to scores of contemporary story-tellers, and as such should always be accessible to the widest possible audience - in their ideal form (i.e.: on the stage)
Having said that, I am by no means taking sides on this issue. I also enjoy finding exciting new plays to stage, and am always blown away by the re-invention of ideas that contemporary playwrights display. I recently had the opportunity to stage a brand-spanking new play, with the playwright involved in the process all the way through casting, rehearsals, and up to opening night. It was a terrific experience. Good plays are good plays, and that experience proved it to me. Whether it was written yesterday or 500 years ago *should* be beside the point.
But lately I am finding an increasingly bolshy divide growing between the "classics" camp and the "new works" camp.
Is it just me, or is this divide an artifical construct? Is it even necessary? Is the tide of our theatrical community moving in the wrong direction simply for the sake of moving *somewhere*?
Is it fair that in the assessment process for funding bodies and hosting venues, that simply having a new work is a justification in and of itself for the submission to be fast-tracked, and yet classics need to demonstrate some "new way of working" in order to be considered?
Should companies with a stated aim of developing new work be required to stage the odd classic, simply for the sake of balance and inclusiveness, not to mention genuine cultural diversity?
Thoughts, anyone?
dm.