Med 1 - Three Questions

Subject: After reading the first three chapters of the text, I couldn’t help but wonder about three specific questions that kept coming to mind. Question one comes from the first chapter where the author discusses how life imitates art and art imitates life (while the romantic would say that real art doesn’t imitate anything, but that’s a discussion for a different time). Anyway, if art and life are so entangled, could we not argue that life actually shapes art?

For instance, some of the greatest pieces of work would never have come about had life circumstances been different. Schindler’s List would’ve never been created had the Holocaust never occurred (you’ll have to excuse the rough example but it’s all I could think of at the moment). Theatre itself would not exist as we know it today had the church not resurrected it from the grave of the A.D. 398 Council of Carthage. It would appear that life does not necessarily imitate art, rather life actually molds and shapes the outcome of the artist.

Secondly, the idea of theatrical license is a wonderful concept, but how far can a director go before s/he creates a new bit of work that simply resembles the former play? In other words, does the director have the right to alter just about every little detail and then claim it for his/her own? Or would s/he still give tribute to the original playwright and simply say s/he is expressing himself in a new direction?

Finally, we simply cannot escape the notion of deception. Is theatre lying or simply a game? After all, we imitate (act out) some of our favorite scenes from movies, television, and plays, and we even have impersonations of our favorite professors – but I’ve never heard anyone say “Shame on you for doing such a good impression!” Do we scold our children for pretending to be pirates, soldiers, ballerinas, and all the things that they’re not but that make childhood fun?

On the other hand, if someone were to impersonate a police officer or act as a professor here at Austin College, that person might find them self in a world of hurt, if not in prison. To me, these are deceptions – a person who plays a part without the knowledge of the second party with the intent to do something other than the acceptable to/with the second party.

Theatre, on the other hand, creates a situation where both party members are aware of what is going on and the second party member accepts what is going on, knowing full well that s/he is being taken in by the whole process. Basically, the second party is conscious of the fact that they are being duped. (On a side note, does this then mean that the audience is just as deceiving as the actors who are doing the original “deceiving”?)

That’s my two cents on the subject – feel free to say, do, add or subtract whatever you like; thus ends my meditation number one.