While not the first time I've read this book, it feels like the first time I have paid attention.

As a quick background, the book is a categorization of four types of Theatre, Deadly, Holy, Rough and Immediate.

As a gross generalization, deadly theatre is typified as most commercial theatre, especially most broadway shows, but also as shows which are not challenging. I think he would argue that plays purely for the basis of entertainment fall under the deadly guise; and I would venture a guess that the material or shows we might colloquially call 'Spectacle', would also fall under this category. Brook seems to indicate that the longer a show runs, the more danger the show has of becoming deadly. Most of his talk about deadly concerns the notion of commercialism in theatre. I think there is a real danger in commercial theatre. Anytime art is used as a business, there are bound to be a wide variety of problems, most obviously that the business world and the theatre world operate on different models. Theatre, by its nature as art, is relegated to being judged subjectively. A prototypical business model is to find a product that is innovative and successful, reverse engineer the product to understand its method of construction, then introduce the remade product onto the market one step bigger and bolder with cosmetic enhancements designed to attract new customers. It seems to me that that modus operandi is what generally flows through the American commercial theatre system. Find a successful play, look for a formula to explain the positive audience reaction to the play, then produce an achingly similar play one notch bigger and bolder. They try to turn it up to eleven... Although, one could easily make the case now that Broadway isn't as interested in new work as it is in adapting from different mediums. BUT, this is not the place for that rant, this is my discussion of Mr. Brook's book.

I agreed with nearly everything that Mr. Brook said about deadly theatre, including his distaste for it. I found it interesting Mr. Brook noted the ease with which Shakespeare is transformed into Deadly theatre. I'm pretty sure we have all been privy to performances of Shakespeare which were droll and insipid.

Mr. Brook speaks of Holy theatre, and I feel as if he speaks of the theatre of ritual. I thought it was interesting he spoke of th etheatre that existed in and around World War 2 in Europe. HE spoke of Holy theatre being the theatre of the invisible made visible, and it seemed like he was speaking about escapism. But perhaps escapism with a point. Holy theatre is, perhaps, Good when it address a need of the population to have a place to escape to. To allow the audience/spectactors to have their hunger sated by this theatre. I have to admit, I was a little bit lost reading this particular chapter. He wants to extoll the virtue and the need of the Holy Theatre to present the invisible as visible.

In reading the chapter (chapbook) about the Rough Theatre, Brook's notions on the Holy Theatre seem to come out a little. While the Rough Theatre is a theatre for the populace, for the working stiff, for the common man, it is the diametric opposite of the Holy Theatre. Or so he says. I'm not sure I find there is such a clear distinction between the two.

Going on the Rough Theatre, Mr. Brook says, "This is the theatre of noise, and the theatre of noise is the theatre of applause." It is the theatre of fun, of overt comedy, and yet of social change and anger. Of public derision and satire. In it's best sense, Broadway fulfills the notion of the Rough Theatre. BUT, as Mr. Brook aptly states, comedy is like fruit. The requisite ingredient for great fruit and great comedy is freshness. The continued injection of new material, of new actors, of NEW. Were I to pick a theatre labeled by Mr. Brook to lay claim as my own, it would be the Rough Theatre. I love comedy, I love laughing, and I love hearing people laugh, and while it may be selfish, I especially love when I can hear someone laugh at something I can up with. I like Musicals. I think musicals are, perhaps, the most affective art form there is. I believe the combination of compelling characters, stories, and live music is nigh-on-unbeatable, and it is one art form that drives me forward. My most favored theatrical memories are the musicals I have worked on, principally "Tidak Bisa". More on this in future posts.

The final elemental form of theatre discussed by Mr. Brook is the Immediate Theatre, which seems to be the style of theatre he most values, hence it's placement at the pinnacle of the book. This section is devoted to Mr. Brook speaking about the ideas he has to fill his own "Empty Space" of theatre. But, in a manner which I applaud and feel awed at, Mr. Brook acknowledges the work as not a formula for theatre, but an exploration of what theatre means to him individually. It would seem the book was written for Mr. Brook by Mr. Brook, but is of such worth to the rest of us, we should read it (and we should).

But in the end, I feel the book talks about the nature of theatre to both lend itself to classification, and also to resist being pigeonholed. Theater blends and merges amongst itself, for, as Mr. Brook says, "The one thing that distinguishes the theatre from all the other arts is that it has no permanence." This lack of stability (perhaps not the right word) allows for the fluid transition of theatre about the genres and, in the case of Mr. Brook, the classifications he came up with. I believe it is possible for a piece of Rough Theatre to also be Immediate, and to coalesce into Deadly. I think the true question is whether theatre that is "Deadly" can be saved and placed back into the other categories, and placed there in a positive sense.

There's a lot to think about in this book, including the notion espoused at the tail end of the book that, as the words were written, they were already moving into the past, and therefore, not quite relevant to Theater any longer.

All in all, a great book that made me think and consider the nature and theory of Theater.

Play well kids.