Defining Theatre - Dan Bradley
Subject: Defining Theatre (1/31/07)
Theater is a term that is often misunderstood. Theater does not simply refer to a show that one goes to see in an auditorium of some kind, although this type of performance is theater. Theater is a much broader term than is often recognized. The word “theater” can be used to describe any pre-scheduled performance that takes place in front of even a small live audience. What exactly will take place in the performance does not have to be pre-planned which allows for improve to be included under the umbrella of theater. However, the performers must have in their mind that they are going to be performing. Otherwise and situation that takes place in everyday life could be classified as theater. This definition allows for events such as the Super Bowl, and presidential debates that we watched last class to be grouped together under the single term theater. This definition also encompasses all types of plays, musical performances, and speeches. The performance does however; have to be done in front of a live audience. This is because theater does not restrict the experience in the same way as television or movies.
Written by Dan Bradley; posted by Kirk Everist
posted by Kirk Andrew Everist @ 10:26 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
While looking over my post, as well as others, I realized that I had referred to the Super Bowl as falling under the umbrella of theater. What I meant to say is that the pre and post game ceremonies can be clarified as theater. I do not believe that the game itself can be called theater. This is because the game has ramifications that last beyond when it ends. Also, sporting events have meaning built into themselves. I believe that the theater does not. For example, if a theater house is completely empty one night then there is no purpose in having the performers go through their performance. Sporting events, however, could be played with no audience there and they would have the same impact on the athletes. The teams involved might not make any money off of the game but they will still have one more win or loss counted at the end of the season because of that game.
I agree that a football game could be played with no audience. No live audience means it wouldn’t qualify as theatre. However, if there was an audience, couldn't it fall under a broad definition of theatre? Shouldn’t a differentiation be made between football games with live audiences and football games without audiences? I understand that a football game still has a 'point' if no one is watching, but the only point is for the team's record. And honestly, I don't really care what a team's record is. I like to go to football games to watch the performance. I don't care who wins; it's just entertaining to go and watch. How do we draw the line between what has a point and what doesn’t? If no one watches a performance of Guys and Dolls, is it completely pointless—or does it mean something to the actors and crew members in the production?
I agree with the opening remarks regarding how the definition of theater is often misunderstood. I feel that the stereotypical response to defining this question, is simply explained as a audience who watches a live performance on stage. There are so many more elements that make up this definition. It is the evoking of emotion, the expression of feelings and the underlying message that is trying to be made evident to the audience. Lastly, theater is evident in our everyday lives, from our ritualistic greetings to our well rehearsed movements and interactions throughout conversations.
Post a Comment
<< Home