The Big Questions

1. What is the responsibility of the artist?
2. What socio-cultural relevance does art have, outside of pure entertainment value?
3. What, if anything, can art truly accomplish?
4. Is theater dead, and what can we do to revive it? Is it even possible?

So, there we go. The Big Questions.

The responsibility of the artist in accordance to what? Society? Himself/herself? That is a clear distinction that needs some clarification. I will answer the question in terms of Society, as I'm not sure anyone can really place a quantifiable or classifiable answer on the responsibility one has to oneself.

If an artist is going to ask anything of society, then there is an inherent responsibility of the artist to provide something of net worth to society. If you want society to pay you, to provide housing, stipend, space, whatnot and whathaveyou, then there has to be a return on the investment of society. It is at that moment that the masturbatory action of art (making art purely for the self with no regard to the impact or involvement of society as audience) becomes puerile and wasteful. And in my opinion, the more an artist requests from society, the more he/she is required to provide, and the more relevance to societal questions the art needs to have.

Okay, Question two.  Socio-cultural relevance. Big words. I'm almost intimidated, but I won't allow my colloquial self to go down without a fight. I think there is an intrinsic value to art, in a socio-cultural manner, and I would argue that to be communication. There is a reason that metaphors exist, and is it ridiculous to postulate that art is the greatest sense of the metaphor? In a secondary sense, I would also argue that art has a great capacity to initiate thought and stimulate feelings/emotions. As far as entertainment goes, I feel there is an implicit value to entertaining art because it allows art to encapsulate a larger audience and introduce them to your way of thinking. A way to preach beyond the choir, is perhaps the best way to say what I'm trying to say. Especially in this contemporary age, where there are so many methods of artistic delivery which have espoused a pure entertainment value approach, I think Art (with a capital A) tries to eliminate any sense of "entertainment" value in order to further distance Art from (for lack of a better word) crass commercialism masquerading as art.

I think the most that one can hope for art, alone, to accomplish is a inciting a different mindset. Art cannot change the word, but it can catalyze people into changing something.

Theatre isn't dead. Theatre is just stupid right now. And to revive it, we need to treat it like theatre. We need to see why it is theatre, and what reason the shows we want to put on are put on in the theater and not in the cinema, or not as a painting. We need to understand the wide variety of medium available and understand that to ignore the power of theatre, the tools of theatre causes it to go unused and rot. For the past hundred and twenty years, we have seen realism and proto-realism and pseudo-realism completely dominate American Theatre, and until that begins to relent in some way, we won't see anything but more of the same, and that more of the same is the death of theatre. Theatre lives on newness and innovation, and we've forgotten that. Also, contemporary theatre is like Velveeta Cheese. We've been feeding our audiences this bland processed chemical crap for so long, they don't know what else to do expect, and blanche when given actual cheese. We need to educate our audiences, and do it in a way that doesn't penalize them. We need to attract people to theatre because it's theatre, not admonish them. This, in a sense, ties into the ideas above about needing to provide entertaining theatre. There has to be a hook, you know?

Well, there are my answers for today. I'm going to reserve full right to completely change my mind next week, but for now, that's what I believe.

A quote to think on

"I began to feel that the theatre was not only inadequate, it was evasive; it did not wish to draw upon its deeper potentialities... It aimed to be soothing."
- Thorton Wilder

My Bucket's Got a Hole Innit

My dear friends and faithful readers, I apologize for the delay in my posting. I have been preoccupied over the past few days with an increasing frustration built on my own petty envies and jealousies. I want theatre to be bigger and bolder than it is, and I get infantly angry when I look at other arts, other entertainment, other people, getting money and/or attention.

On the opening of the Olympics, I had to take a moments pause. The average Olympian (while I may say average, know that's still a mean feat. (I am so sorry for the puns...)) isn't able to train/prepare for the Olympics without assistance. But the United States government and various big businesses (and a host of erstwhile sponsors)provide the means and ways of allowing an athlete to hold a job and prepare for his/her competitions. Most major schools offer scholarships for athletes. All of this, it got me a-thinking. I won't, for one minute suggest these peoples don't deserve scholarships and such. I think of athletes with a high regard. I am pretty sure there is a cultural prerogative in the United States to perceive athletes as the paragons of humanity, and I find it hard to rise above that cultural pressure.

All of this leads me to saying what I want to say, which is, why don't we have a similar mindset for artists? Would it be so difficult to rework the patronage method?

Okay, well, think on that for now, chew up and down, and I am going to listen to my good friend Jenny's play be read. Go visit her at theoffcenter.com Tomorrow, I will be looking at answering her post, The Big Questions.

Cheers.

Noir Theatre?

Okay, so first an excuse.... I don't have internet at my house, so I can't quite yet get around to posting any actual replies to the comments, but it has bee lovely getting them. Welcome, new readers.

So, Noir theatre...

We'll, let us think back to the elements I posited as requisite for Noir. Can they be put on stage in a manner that allows the art form to be more than an homage?

I mean, certainly, insomuchas there is totally room for violence and eroticism on stage, mysteries happen, and brutality has been rather commonplace since Oedipus plucked his eyes out. I'd say, sure. Noir can happen... Sort of.

I think the visual aesthetic is very strong, especially from the film aspect of Noir. I don't have a strong answer for replicating that on stage... Perhaps i'll come up with something tonight in the dreamland...

A reply to an earlier comment

Okay, so, sometimes I am technologically incompetent and a bit lazy, so I'm not sure how to go about replying to comments via email.

SO... A little ways in the past, there was a comment about wanting to franchise black box theatres across the United States, and while that is an admirable notion, theatre to the masses and al, there is an intrinsic problem with theatre, that theatre doesn't gain any advantages with an economy of scale. Big shows are always more expensive. Always. Even for big theatres producing a host of shows, the big shows are expensive.

Every actor, ideally, requires a living wage for the entirety of the production, and that's expensive. So are sets and electricity and play rights... Theatre is, when we imagine it as fully produced, expensive... And if we want society to pay for it, we need to figure out a method of translating that cost into a worth to society beyond pure entertain, and more broad tan elitist Art.

Okay. Response done.

Noir, defined. Ish.

It has been somewhat more difficult than I originally thought, coming up with a definition for noir. It seems to have been something which has eluded critics and thinkers alike. Although, I'd venture the chief point has been their inability to find a definition that works for everyone.

But, here goes my attempt: noir, first off, refers merely to the film genre, not really the literature. Of course, at no time in my research did I come across any mention of theatre delving into the Noiric arts. The movement (or style (as Thomas Schatz would have you) or genre or what-have-you(Alain Silver refers to Noir as a cycle, or a phenomena, that the noir mood was a period with relative geographic and temporal boundaries)) began in the United States as a literary art form known as Hardboiled, which would also become known, later, as Pulp, due to the cheap printing that normally accompanied it. This was the world of Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler, and was typified by generally dark themes particularly those which emphasize moral ambiguity and sexual motivation. There seems to be a need in the noir for an unsentimental portrayal of sex violence and crime.

The Hardboiled fiction of the thirties gave birth to the "Classic" (and to some, only) period of noir films, from late thirties through the late fifties. Certain critics have argued that all Noir films following that period have only been as homage or allusion, and not qualifiable as Noir. I happen to argue that is hogwash.

Okay, enough of the history, you say, what makes up Noir? At one point in my reading, five words were tossed out as elements of noir (though written directly after was the phrase that most noirs have even some of these elements, and rarely all five... So why?... Anyway) oneiric, strange, erotic, ambivalent, and cruel. I didn't know what oneiric meant, and it means pertaining to dreams. The stereotypical notion of Noir seems to entail the protagonist being a Private Eye, a gumshoe, but the reality isn't quite true. Sure, Hammett and Chandler relied on the character as a private eye, but Cain (a later writer) relied on a less heroic lead with more emphasis on psychological exposition rather than crime solving. Indeed, most film noir was more likely to have a lead as a victim, or a person directly connected to the crime or problem in question.

So, Noir might not have a detective lead, but there's a crime? Well, mostly, but as stated above, there was a movement away from crime solving investigations toward psychological exposition.

But they happened in the gritty cities? No. Some did, but plenty happened in small semi-rural areas.

There is generally, and it would seem with Noir it is all general, there is a visual intricacy (principally derived from German expressionist film) and a complex voiceover driven narrative. They are sophisticated and bleak dramas (except when they're comedies) dusted with mistrust and cynicism, topped off with a generous helping of the absurd.

Noir's roots are in German Expressionism, French Poetic Realism and Italian Neo-Realism. I really don't know a heap about any of those, but I will certainly do a bit of peeking to see what is up, and push it onto here in the next few days.

Okay, so after reading this, did I figure out a definition of Noir? Not really. For me, noir deals with crime and betrayal and moral ambiguity, where people try to be Good in the face of a choice that isn't simple. The kill one to save five dilemma. But there's a sense of not taking prisoners, of actively seeking revenge when betrayed, of hitting back, at all times. Of using any and all means to win, and of having to accept different definitions to win...

Maybe I can just do as the Supreme Court has done before me... I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

All of this, and the question remains: what the heckfire does this have to do with theatre? Well, can we translate this art form to the stage, or is it relegated to film and literature? That topic, my fine feathered friends, I think I will tackle later this week. Following German Expressionism, Italian neorealism and French PoeticRealism. Good day. Write well.

A quick note

Wow, okay. I just finished watching season three of Veronica Mars. They include on the last dvd the pitch they put together to try and attain a further season from the networks, and the easiest way to describe the change is from a hip young contemporary farce where the protagonist has to deal with her real life and her detective life to what certainly seemed like just another crime procedural... It was such a disappointment. Okay, BACK TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING OF MEDIOCRITY.

Where did Noir go?

It is amazing how good Veronica Mars is. I almost can't handle the fact that the season and series is over. I found it a refreshing island of something new in the world of story telling. Noir, in my mind, is one of the most fascinating arenas of storytelling, and I love it.

There's just something so..... Deep about it. So painful. The noir hero is so conflicted and broken. They/he/she make mistakes and feel the terrible consequences of the choices they make. Sex and violence are bosom buddies. Everyone betrays everyone, and the secrets are deep and deadly.

And contemporary noir! How much potential can there be! There's so much perceived danger, paranoia, it's incredible, and unexploited.

It would seem to me, Noir has had a cultish following in recent years, but hasn't really seen a deep cultural popularity since its birth in the post-war years. So why? Every once in a while, some noir tale pops up and is lavished with praise and delight. I mean, I'm a little biased. I love noir.

My question for this evening is: how can we, and I use the pejorative we lightly to imply those of us playing in the theatrical sandbox, harness Noir for plays?

Tomorrow, I will take a bit of time to write out some of the characteristics that define noir to me, and in the following posts, I will see if I can explore how stage plays might romp in this gleefully dark genre.

Great Theatre

Sometimes we can find ourselves on the site of a phenomenal dramatic event. The quirky fates which seem to control the flows of the universe manage to put on some glorious bits of life.

Karoake is a great example of free fate based theatre. Live-ish music, awkward and usually desperate social interactions, and then, those little bits of weirdness. Tonight, for example, we have this young Hispanic woman, looking rather out of place amongst the wealthy pale elite of Westport. What's interesting with her is some tertiary facts, i.e., she is pregnant. In a bar. With a drink in one hand and a cigarette in the other. And is clearly being ignored (and is upset at this) by the guy with the overpriced jeans, slick hair, and clever orange hair...

(on a side note, the gentleman currently singing is atrocious)

These sorts of characters exist in life, and one of my favorite pastimes is making up their stories. Inviting them into my little universe, the one I control in my slice of mind. I credit this with helping out my playwrighting. Next time you find yourself out people watching, look around and allow the characters you see to permeate your brain, and set them free on the page.

Let's take the people I see here. The Hispanic lady, I think her name is Gloria. The guy she's here with is Thomas. Thom, as he goes by, is playing beer pong with his high school buddies, who are closer to him now than family Lives with his parents, works in the City. Gloria is a supposedly surrogate mother, secretly pregnant with Thom's baby and in a twisted, and ultimately passive aggressive, move, she smokes and drinks in order to damage the poor kid.

I sometimes wonder if I am the only one who does this sort of thing. I do it a lot. Perpetually really. And it can be a bit of a problem when the stories I've concocted don't mesh with the greater reality, and I get a bit confused about what is what. What I came up with, and what they came up with.. But isn't that the game of the playwright?

I guess there's a grand question looming there... Why do we write? And, more specifically, why do we write for theatre? What is it about this particular medium that draws us in, and why do we sacrifice so much to do this?

I am going to try and facilitate an answer to this question somewhere in the coming days...

Breaking News

I am writing another book to a musical, and I am a bit afraid. I don't want to fall into the trap of crating a worthless piece of trash that exists only to make money and provide a modicum of entertainment. I'd like to follow the tenets I have espoused, the ideas I try and believe in.

I was reading an interview with a number of playwrights in the last issue of American Theatre, and I found a rather insightful thought: theatre, by virtue of its place in contemporary society, needs to be bigger and more important. We ask our audience to make increasingly larger sacrifices in order to attend our productions. We need to offer a product that is worth the forty, eighty, hundred dollars, we are asking for tickets. We can't put on something that can be shown on television, just another procedural or a crass commercial event. When we write a play, and ultimately I realize the we must be sublimated to an I, must take a look at the topic, the story, the characters, the show itself and ask the question, "Is what I'm offering enough to justify the sacrifice I am asking so many others to make?"

Is it?

Think about what we are asking. Not just the audience members, but also al the people required to put the show together. Director, designers, riggers, carps, electricians, costumers, assistants, interns, actors, understudies, box office staff, marketers, and so on and so forth. It is a huge undertaking. Does a play so incredibly about your personal experience which no one can relate to, does that rate the sacrifice? Does a broad comedy about sexual shenanigans within a golf office?

I just feel there needs to be more, and I will probably still write plays that are a bit to small, bit too personal... But I'm going to try to keep that in mind, that for my plays to be fully realized, I have to ask a lot of other people...

Stagedoor Manor

This is a very interesting documentary. I highly advise all people looking for a life in theatre or living a life in theatre, to take a peek.

"Where are all those people who move chairs?"

There is such an emphasis on the styles of theatre that are so godawful. But can we expect our children to cut their teeth on Beckett and Ionesco? Simpler theatre for youth, perhaps. But when and where can we show them that "Mame" is not the bee knees of theatre? Is that the function of college? I will say that, should I ever get the honor of teaching younger children about stagecraft, I promise to push the envelope and not put musicals above everything else.

This is the appropriate time to unleash a little secret. I like musicals. There is so much power in the combination of live music and live acting. A person singing right in front of you is capable of such powerful emotion. I think, perhaps, the contemporary musicals are not being responsible in their themes or topicality. I mean, "Legally Blonde", really? Or even more frightening, "Spiderman: the musical." Apparently coming soon, helmed by Julie Taymor, to replace the juggernaught of "Young Frankenstein". Dear Lord, where are we headed.

But that still leaves the key question of the day, how can we teach theatre to the youth sans the elemental problems of the theatre of the dead. The theatre of the undead. The shuffling decay of pointless trivial theatre, where Broadway is held up as the pinnacle of American Theatre... How do we lead them to see the need for invigorating stimulating theatre?

Sometimes I feel I'm not equipped to answer the questions I ask. But isn't that a sign of wanting more? Of reaching out for greater knowledge?

I hope so.

Realism continued

So after a little reading and thinking, I have the short answer to the definition of realism. Realism: (dramatic arts) a movement towards greater fidelity to real life.

Realism

So, here I am, tasked with writing a realistic play, which begs the question, what is realism? What are the rules by which I must play in order to get a passing grade. While I am familiar with the notion of realism, we are, by no means, close friends. I've avoided writing in that style because I feel it represents, among other things, what is killing contemporary American Theatre. How can I bring myself, even in an exercise, to write something I perceive as so awful and, for lack of a better word, dangerous?

A New Test

I recently acquired a new phone, and I am excited to have it, like any gadget, it takes a significant amount of getting used to. Here is the first of, hopefully, many new posts.

The Problem of Defining Theater

And theatre is you run the risk of limiting theatre. And as I use this mild public forum to lash out in childish frustration upon the topic I don't understand. I don't get it. It being the play selection of any theatre these days, from my school to the major regionals to broadway.

I do want something different. I want there to be a reason to go to theatre again, more than just because it's there. I want to be excited by theatre again. Is that so much to ask?

As I said I was going to answer the question- What is theatre?- I suppose I will. In my estimation, theatre is a performance that happens in front of an audience, the bulk of the performance being live, happening right there.

And if that's the whole definition, well, what then separates it from dance? Or just basic performance art? I'm open to other ideas here. Anything?

On a final note, a received a contradictory note from a former playwrighting professor, in which he told me to stop writing new plays in order to focus on rewriting the ones I have already written. But, he also mentioned that he wanted me to try writing a fully realistic play in order that I might see the full power and potential of realism (I would guess in his mind above and beyond the other available genres of theatre available).

I haven't written anything in a while, and I'm thinking of trying to bust out of this writing slump by putting together a realism piece. What will it teach me? Who knows. Who knows. Of course, it begs the question, what is realism?

Next time: what is realism?

#
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Tackling a Difficult Question...

... Which is: "What is Theatre?"

I'm not sure. Quite the answer. Six years of school and six of professional life and that's the short answer.

To be clear, theater is a building, theatre is the art form.

What is theatre then? Well, there are some intrinsic elements that I feel must be accounted for. Theatre is a performance. The bulk of a piece needs to be made up of a live performance, though I fully understand and realize the need to explore the convergence of theatre with other media in this day and age. But there needs to be something more than just performance. What can we point out to differentiate theatre from contemporary performance pieces, or modern dance? Is it story? Is it themes? Visual flair? Perhaps avant-garde theatre and modern dance are so close as to be indistinguishable.

I want theatre to have a story, and to have a point. I want theatre to mean something, because if I'm going to give up my time and money (which is an increasingly larger quantity each time I'm asked to go to a show), I want something bigger, bolder, something that means more than the procedurals gracing the television. I want more than the clever plotting and solid realism dancing across the silver screen. I want my theatre (dare I say all theatre) to take advantage of the fact that it is theatre, that it has inherent advantages over television and film and radio. I want my theatre to finally admit that realism is a vein more apt to be plumbed in film, not theatre. Film does it so well, why must we exist in this world where realism is still trying to be king on stage. Please. Stop it already. But you won't. We won't. The train is rolling.

I won't sit here and rail against realism, as much as I might want to, BUT why can't people take a moment and look at what theatre has to offer? Live actors! Right there. Feet away from the audience. Realism asks us to put a wall there, that infamous fourth one. They ask the audience to pretend, to enter into that Devil's Pact of make believe, that what we see on stage is real. That Hedda Gabler's cabinets are full of dishes and the like. But we know that's not Hedda Gabler. Or Roma. Or anyone but Kevin Kline. Or Jennifer Garner. But we can't say that. There's no acknowledging that in realism. Because it's real.

But here's the catch. The rub. The sandpaper against your bum:

It's not real. The play is just as contrived as anything.

Now don't get me wrong, I won't say realism has no place in theatre, I just think there's too much of it- I dare say I hold the over saturation of realism in the market to be one of the key factors in the (and I recognize the oxymoronic nature of this) increasing decline of American Theatre. There, I said it. Not an answer to what is theatre, but perhaps the start of uncovering my frustration.

Okay, I'm off for the night and will return with more when I can.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

What is Art? (Part 2)

Today was a good day.

I spent the better part of it wandering around New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, which has the very best price to culture ratio. This wandering allowed me to really take time to think about the nature of Art. There's a full spectrum of visual thrills available, as Art from most, if not all, periods of Western history are on display. From ancient Egypt to Monet and beyond.

What, then, is Art?

I know it when I see it? In some senses, I wish there was some strong delineation between art and not, but exclusivity breeds elitism, not Art, not creativity. I think good art separates put by being an item that truly provokes thought or emotion. Art should strive to invite the viewer/spectator/audience member out of their comfort zone. It's an invitation to explore new thoughts and concepts, to view our world from a different perspective.

Some Art does this better than others, some is exceptionally effective for person A, and merely two blue lines for person B. Can we say art must effect everyone? There's a glorious freedom in art, and putting up boundaries destroys the garden.

I know what I want Art to be, but the big question is, I guess, do I know what I want Theatre to be?
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

A quote

"In Tara Donovan's phenomenological art, the mundane meets the miraculous; the inanimate appears organic, almost alive; and an aesthetic simplicity of subtle forms is ingeniously achieved from a vast conglomeration of consumer goods."
- Met Wall

Hot. Just hot. Both the art and the words written about it. Taking the mundane and making it extraordinary.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

What is Art? Pt 1

The precursor to what is Theatre, I think it's time I try and define Art. What is it? Where are the boundaries between Art and, well, not-art? Things that masquerade as art, say, crass commercial movies or theatre?

But then what about Pop Art? Found Art? Can I hang Duchamp out to dry?

I'm at the Metropolitan Museum of Art to come up with an answer. More on this as events warrant.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

An Amazing Read

Someday, I hope to be as eloquent as this man, Mike Daisey.