RE: New to RAT Communique`

[The Independent Eye <bards@independenteye.org>]

John Sylvain wrote-

>I think the conversation here tends to shift to the political and then
>degenerate into name calling because the people on this list are independent
>minded theater people who are so committed to their own visions that they
>will go through the trouble of starting a small theater rather than follow
>any easier path.

	Being committed to one's vision is a radically different thing than
being closed to all outside influences.  One can learn from (and steal
creatively from) work that's utterly contrary to one's own.
	Sometimes, though, it takes a while to recover from college before
one can look at stuff with a practical eye.
	When it degenerates, I think it's just because some people have an
uncontrollable impulse to pick fights.  It's the same fight that
periodically erupts on nearly every listserv, whether about polyamory or
poodles - not, alas, a sign of commitment to vision.

> one problem with discussing theater on the RAT list is that we are so
>spread out
>and theater is a very localized phenomena. If I told you about this great
>show at Zoo District or at the Actors Gang would you really care since if
>you don't live in Los Angeles you couldn't see it? > I think we have more
>to talk about politically.

	You really hit on the most vulnerable point about theatre today.
With the growth of the regional thetre, decline of NY, and enormous
expansion of the varieties of theatre, it's become incredibly more
localized than ever.  In the 50's, I could sit in Omaha and read Theatre
Arts Magazine, and even though I'd never been to NY, I could feel connected
with where the center was.  i could get the play and read it, read reviews,
listen to the cast album, talk to others about a show neither of us had
seen.  There was a dialogue about theatre.
	With the glorious proliferation, one would expect the dialogue
would expand.  On the contrary.  And even locally (though your experience
may vary), I think there's very little discussion about theatre, even among
theatre people.  In Philadelphia, where we've been for the past seven
years, with the theatre scene burgeoning, most conversations about were -
Did you see XXX?  Yeh.  What'd you think?  It was pretty good.  (or I
didn't think it worked, or It was fantastic.)  But not much more.  On the
other hand, my theatre friends could talk about one movie for an hour.
	I believe that one reason people don't go to theatre is that it's
no longer part of the social dialogue.  It's more likely people have seen
movies.  Nobody you know's involved in the movie.  And, dare I say it,
they're usually more interesting than theatre.  The popularity of fringe
festivals has come about from making these things *events* that define
one's identity with a tribe.  Much the same as the sudden growth of theatre
ensembles in late 60's, connected with the political & countercultural
explosion - going to this particular theatre was like going to a rock
concert, part of identifying with your tribe.
	That seems to be happening here and there, in bits and pieces,
today, as exemplified by some of the RAT groups.  What hasn't happened
much, it seems, is to learn how to *talk* about theatre.  I don't think
it's necessary to have seen a production to have an interesting exchange
about it.  It's a different dialogue - the true dialogue of dramatic
criticism.  A true critic is producing a piece of written work that's a
response to the stimulus of a particular show or book or whatever; response
to that is response to the written piece, not to the original.  But that
can be really interesting and fruitful.  John Lahr's work in The New Yorker
is wonderful criticism - evokes vivid images of the show, is full of
thought, stimulates thinking - even though I've only ever seen two of the
pieces he's reviewed and disagreed with his evaluations of both.
	I think we really need to learn to write about the things we see,
try to capture what's interesting and why.  There was a brief posting about
"collage" pieces, and several comments about the difficulties of this form,
and then suddenly it seemed to fly off into insult.  Because nobody had
anything more interesting to say about the question?  I would think that
the issue isn't "I love'em" or "I hate'em" but a serious attempt to share
our diverse experiences around this subject.

	Sorry for going on so long, being new to the list, without having
introduced myself.  Will do that next time.

Peace & joy-
Conrad Bishop






Visit The Independent Eye's website
at <http://www.independenteye.org>.