RE: New to RAT Communique`

["Sylvain, John" <jsylvain@station.sony.com>]

You bastard!

;-)

I think you have more completely and carefully articulated what I was trying
to say. Another thing that struck me this morning is that not only is there
a lack of spatial context, that is to say we are spread all over the
country, there is also a lack of a temporal context. History has very little
meaning in the new theater. Shows come and go. They have an impact on (in
our case) a maximum of about a thousand people. After five years at Annex we
created a time capsule. Five years later I was the only one at the 10 Year
Anniversary party who was remotely interested in what was in that time
capsule. 

Shows open, shows close. People fall in love with each other, people move
on. The art that is created is Powerful and vital yet ephemeral. It is
there, the most important thing in your life and then it evaporates. The set
is struck and the lights come down and the actors  start looking for another
project. We're building beautiful, powerful sand castles.

I'm left with the best memories a man could have but its seems like with all
this energy and with this community that Erik engendered there should/could
be an impact point. Like a plastic surface that absorbs and records the
explosions of creativity going on all over the country in small
theaters...like mine.

Nick?

I feel like this recent focus on history is a function of age....

In any case, welcome to the RAT list Conrad. Please don't apologize for
going on so long. Especially when you go on so well.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	The Independent Eye [SMTP:bards@independenteye.org]
> Sent:	Wednesday, December 22, 1999 10:20 AM
> To:	rat-list@whirl-i-gig.com
> Subject:	RE: New to RAT Communique`
> 
> 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>.
>