Compare two of the points of view about theater that you learned about in your readings (Mamet, Jones, or Brooks). How do you think these points of view differ, and what might they have in common in their quest to create the perfect theater?
Let me start off by saying, I love theatre as much as the next uncultured student (meaning as much as I love experiencing it, my opportunities are often limited). But theatre isn’t what we believe it is, in the eyes of the devoted, what the average person believes is theatre (i.e. Broadway, Shakespeare, etc.) is actually only a shallow perception of what is widely commercialized. Some say there is more to theatre than just Broadway and its showy spectacular (here meaning ostentatious) musicals, others say that the lack of audience and revenue has led to a lack of “off Broadway” (meaning there’s very little left in terms of off Broadway theatre).
Take for example David Mamot, who wrote, “There is only Broadway,” now, while that technically not true, he has a point. Off Broadway theatres are less successful than Broadway theatre, which has led to a decline over the last few years. Broadway, with its incredible sets, gorgeous costumes, famous actors, brilliant effects and all around well-commercialized popularity does an exceptional job of selling seats to a wonderful experience…but to who? Mamot believes that Broadway is now merely a tourist attraction, a showy experience that people attend so that they may brag about going to it to those who have not. Mamot sounds like he’s resigned to the fact that what’s happening to theatre is inevitable, and while he’s accepted that, he’s still resentful. The focus on attracting tourists has twisted theatre into a focus on the spectacular (effects, lights, etc.) rather than on the acting and the substance of the play itself.
Mamot’s opinion of theatre is hardly the sharpest of perspectives, an example of harsher critique would be that of Peter Brook. The first chapter in his book (The Empty Space), “The Deadly Theatre” describes “bad theatre,” which contains an extensive view of how infected theatre is with this “deadly” problem. No play is safe, no classic is immune, according to Brook, all theatre is susceptible to becoming “deadly.” Wow…harsh, but well supported. Brook from the start mentions the link between bad theatre and commercial theatre, so its clear, he really, really, really doesn’t like it. Also, what brings about deadly theatre can be a number of things, the script, the actor, the director, the setting, the critics, the smallest aspect of a performance can cause deadliness to strike. Change is probably what makes it so easy for theatre to become deadly. To keep the audience entertained, to make the people come back, and to keep making money off of it, theatre tends to grow and redevelop itself through new styles, or new approaches, some of which take away from the significance of theatre. While the purpose is to entertain, the means by which it is achieved aren’t true theatre anymore.
