vasantn

I could probably handle Die Walküre live. You've talked me into it.

Out of my Element

I've never paid $500 for the two of us to see theater. And I haven't seen Little Mermaid or Spiderman on B'way (ok, I've seen the flicks). You can lead a horse to water and you can take a horticulture, but you can't make them chose "good" theater as opposed to mass market pablum. The masses are unwashed, and if you don't want to get yourself sullied by their odor, don't go to the shows that you are assigning to their tastes.

PTravel

Exactly, which is why I don't blame them, but do blame the producers of the mmp, i.e. Disney et al.

Um . . . once again the issue isn't one of class segregation, but of a few producers who are, consciously and deliberately, doing great harm to the theater medium.

GadgetFreak

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Frankly, there seems to be a lot of concern about the people helping keep the lights on. I say welcome.

dchristiva

This does strike me as a snobbish attitude. Theater offers different things to different people. Not to mention everyone has to start somewhere in terms of his/her first performance. If getting someone to a Disney show launches a love of the theater and arts, so be it. I'm not suggesting that theater only be designed for the masses. Only that the more "commercial" shows may be a stepping stone for someone who may otherwise never have had any exposure to the theater. There's a place in the theater world for all kinds of performances. I give more credit to people's critical thinking skills. I'm quite confident that theater-goers realize that not every performance will mirror the perceived glitz and glamour of something produced by Disney and they can appreciate good acting without a bunch of special effects that are ordinarily found in the movies.

Are you talking about theater outside of NYC? Because I find plenty of non-Disney shows here in New York.

Again, I disagree. People are smarter than you seem to want to acknowledge.

There's no connection whatsoever. An audience full of folks in jeans and t-shirts doesn't reflect anything about their expectations. Just because I might show up to the theater wearing something other than a jacket and tie doesn't mean I have a different level of expectation for the show. If the audience attire changes the way the actors perform, well, that strikes me as unprofessional on their part.

GadgetFreak

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

I believe Deborah Voigt is playing Brunnhilde in Die Walkure. We saw her in the role of Brunnhilde in Götterdämmerung and in a few other things. She is fantastic.

PTravel

Sorry, but you miss the point. It is not a question of personal tastes, but of the "mechanics" of theater, i.e. how it works. And theater works very differently from film. Meryl Streep is nominated for her performance in Iron Lady; there is a general consensus among the film-going public -- all of it -- that her performance was amazing. I agree, but unlike most of the film-going public, I know exactly how she did it. I've studied and taught the specific techniques that Streep (and most of Hollywood's great actors) use (and they're not secret -- there are many books published that explain it). It's a specific and detailed craft that allows an actor who has mastered it (and, of course, Streep has), to do the kind of detailed, spontaneous, richly-textured and utterly convincing performances that are regarded, universally, as "good acting." "Talent," the kind of amorphous, "either you have it or you don't" quality that non-industry people think is the key to artistic acting success plays only a very small part. However, to enjoy a good acting performance doesn't require knowing how it was created -- by definition, a good acting performance is one in which you lose awareness of the actor and simply accept him or her as the character they are playing. You don't need to know anything about inner monologues, substitutions, emotional reality, actions, arc, and all the other processes that go into creating the performance.

The point of all this is that those of us who have studied theater, both academically and professionally, know how and why theater "works." Theater and, particularly, musical theater, is one of the most complicated of the collaborative arts -- requiring set designers, lighting designers, composers, orchestrators, lyricists, book writers, directors, choreographers, technical designers, musicians, actors, singers and dancers who are all well-schooled in their crafts and can come together as a team to create an effective theater experience. The key, here, is "effective." As I've said a number of times, it has nothing to do with how "deep," or "profound," is the theatrical work. There have been lots of what I would consider "popular entertainments" that were extremely effective theater. Annie and Hairspray are two from the musical theater world. Wicked is good musical theater. Any Neil Simon work, and lots of Terrance McNally and David Mamet are examples from straight plays. The fact that all of these appeal to mass audiences doesn't negate the fact that they were produced by creative teams who understood how theater works and why it works differently from film.

This has nothing to do with snobbery. You don't hire a plumber to do wiring, and you don't hire an electrician to fix your pipes.

Exactly right. And that's why it's critical that someone's first show be one provides the best theatrical experience. By all means, go see Wicked or Hairspray or Phantom. Experience that unique two-way communication with the actors, be an active part of the dialogue of the theater experience. You'll realize that theater offers something that film can't, and you'll want more.

Don't go see Disney or (most) revuesicals -- they don't provide that experience.

And that's the point. With the exception of Lion King, what Disney produces is not theater -- it is "live" film. It doesn't work like theater, doesn't result in a "theater experience," and is ultimately unsatisfying as compared to its cinematic parent (this isn't necessarily true of all stage adaptations of films, but is certainly true of Disney). This isn't to say that theater is "better" than film, or vice versa -- just that, when done right, they offer different experiences.

New art forms don't come along very often. Cirque du Soliel has invented a new art form, and now there are a number of non-Cirque shows that utilize Cirque elements. This art form takes place in a theater, too, but it's not theater (though it does include theatrical elements). Obviously, it's a successful art form, both in terms of popularity and artistic integrity, but it doesn't pretend to be something that it's not, e.g. opera, theater or, for that matter, circus.

Disney (and the revuesical producers), on the other hand, call what they do "theater," and people attend it thinking that they're seeing theater when, in fact, they're not. Disney, too, has tried to invent a new art form -- call it, "live animation." The one thing it is not, however, is theater. And the reason it is not theater is because it doesn't work the way theater does, and does not have that central requirement of all theater, which is the participatory nature of the audience experience.

Yet many people go to these shows thinking they're theater (for which they can't be blamed -- they're advertised as theater, performed in theaters, and produced on Broadway, side-by-side with theater). They judge the theater form based on their initial exposure to these shows, come away thinking they've had a theater experience when they have not, and determine their interest in future theater-going based on what they've seen.

Theater is, was and always will be designed for the masses. Theater was invented by the masses, perfected in front of the masses, and has always been part of mass culture. We're talking about an entire art form, not specific works within that art form. I support theater -- all of it -- irrespective of the specific works. Crass comedy, profound drama, classically-sung musicals, hip-hop musicals -- it's all good, as far as I'm concerned, provided it's all theater, i.e. it provides that unique audience experience that is specific to theater and not found in other art forms.

Indeed. Unfortunately, neither revuesicals, nor Disney, are part of the theater world. They are something else. Whether they are valid or not is irrelevant. What they are not is theater.

dchristiva

I couldn't disagree more on all of these points. You have your definition of "theater". It's not the definition. Plenty of trained electricians wouldn't recognize a good wiring job. I'd say the same applies for "theater" critics. I don't have a dog in the hunt with regards to Disney theater productions, but they are "theater" just as much as any other performance.

Your posts in this thread express the idea that theater is for the masses, as long as they wear the right attire and have the "right" expecations. That seems like a snobbish attitude. I'd prefer to see an audience full of casually-dressed people who have limited theater-going experience and expectations than well-dressed uptight folks with linear definitions of "theater".

PTravel

First of all, it's not my definition. And, yes, it is the definition.

I'm not a theater critic.

Why? What makes them theater in your view? For that matter, what is "theater" in your view? A good starting place is what Lope de Vega said.

Nope, not even close. Theater is for the masses. Period. It always has been and always will. Unfortunately, in the last century or so, most of the masses have never seen theater.

It would be, if that was my attitude.

You clearly have missed my point. Once again, I don't care what people wear to the theater. I don't care what people's definition is of theater, just as I don't care what people's definition is of acting. I only care that they actually come see and enjoy theater, rather than never come and think that the almost-but-not-quite productions presented by Disney are theater and forming their impressions of an entire art form based on that.

You don't have to know anything about how theater works to enjoy it, anymore than you need to know how film works to enjoy it. You leave that to the professionals.

GadgetFreak

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

One good thing about this thread is that it reminded me to listen to part of Die Walkure on my flight. And we have tickets now for an upcoming performance t the Met Opera.

CDTraveler

Ugh. I think that is one of the most offensive posts I've ever seen on FT.

I don't claim to have a BA in theater, but I do claim to have had a good education. One of my professors, in a class on Greek drama, defined "theater"
in one word: communication and I believe in essence that is what "good theater" is, communicating a story, a feeling, an experience, and in the end, lightening, scene design and other "production" features have less to do with good theater than the words/message and the way in which they are conveyed. Way back in grade school, a few stage actors [A.C.T. from SF] came to my school, and for an audience of 1st through 8th graders, they performed scenes from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. No sets, no costumes, but every kid there felt as if they were back in Rome, seeing the struggle for power unfold before them. You might claim that was just trained acting technique, but to me it was the true core of theater: creating an experience, conveying a message.

Disney and its ilk are very effective at conveying a message, creating an experience, in their own way. It's not a way that I personally patronize, but there is nothing wrong with others having the choice to participate in that experience. People walk out of the theater after a Disney showing singing the songs, feeling the mood: the show communicated to them a message that they take with them, and that is "theater".

PTravel

Really?

I haven't "claimed" to have a BA in theater. I have said that I have a BA, MFA and PhD (abd) in theater, as well a dozen years as a professional actor and acting teacher (as well as many more years studying acting with Uta Hagen, Herbert Berghoff and Roy London). I am not exactly a dilettante.

That defines an element of theater and is only half right. The full answer, which I've provided a number of times in this thread, defines theater and also explains what makes it unique. Did your Greek drama professor teach about how Greek theater evolved, and why it used the particular format that it used?

Lope de Vega, who I mentioned before, said all he needed to create theater was "two boards and a passion." de Vega was right. What has "acting technique" to do with that? What's your point?

Sure they do. It's just not theater because, as I've said repeatedly, it ignores the central requirement of a theater experience, while focusing solely on what theater cannot do.

Who said that it is? Not me. I merely object to it being marketed as theater when, in fact, it is not.

No, it's not theater, because the core of the theater experience has nothing to do with walking out of a performance singing the songs or feeling the mood. Perhaps you should have taken a few more theater courses as an undergraduate.

dchristiva

Step back for a second. Do you really not see how this comes across as snobbish?

I have a lowly B.A. in economics, but my liberal arts education taught me that rarely does "one size fit all". I have no doubt that there's more than one definition of "theater" and more than one way to get a great cup of coffee.

CDTraveler

Be that as it may, (or may not - this is the internet; I don't believe everything I read here) you are not entitled by some divine right to define theater, nor is any other mere mortal to whom you choose to attribute a quote. There is no one, universal definition of theater.

Had my first title role at age 6, acted off and on through elementary and high school, but by college I had given up acting and focused on academics. Didn't bother with any drama department classes, this one was taught by a professor of Greek.

PTravel

No, I'm not entitled by divine right. I'm entitled by virtue of my academic credentials and my professional credentials.