Re: New to RAT Communique`/Jonoh/John/Audie

[MFarkash@aol.com]

Re. bards (Conrad) Jonoh,  Audie --

Great points from all of you about theatre audiences, et.

    FILM
    One of my acquaintances, a film person, said he'd rather go to the worst 
film than a bad play. Because there are elements, for him, to study and 
contemplate in a bad film. Wheras, a bad play (e.g. poor direction, acting, 
text) is simply off-putting and makes him angry that he wasted his time. And 
this is a former stage actor.

    CAN'T UNDERSTAND THEATRE
    The reasons are legion that keep LA people from alternative productions 
-- it's inconvenient. TV and film are more accessible. And hey, when you get 
there, what if it's bad,  or impossible to comprehend?

    The theatre could be part of the social dialogue if we all lived in small 
towns. But if we did, most of the theater available would be Neil Simon, 
Australian murder mystery or melodrama.  The commerce of arts dialogue for 
most of us is film, TV and best-sellers.  Until the eco-disaster that wipes 
out our electronic cradle happens, we're going to be seduced by bigger and 
better high-tech.)

    PERSONALITY
    We have a lot of people who prize personalities over the work -- at least 
on the RAT list, where playmakers are fantasizing about their own impact on 
the scene. That's showcase thinking -- the work, the play, the performance, 
ought to be paramount.  Not the bitchslapping.

    LESS WORK
    Which brings me to my favorite hobbyhorse -- let's do LESS work, and 
better work. Unfortunately, a lot of the demand for staging plays comes not 
from the public, but from actor-driven companies. I understand the need to 
work. But not to submit it for reviews, unless it's something new and 
extraordinary. 

    AUDIE HAS THE MODEL
    Audie's filing on Dec. 22 is one paradigm I'm in agreement with -- put 
the play up as a workshop first, and then take a real look at it. (Maybe even 
bring in outside people who aren't afraid to tell the truth.)   See if it's 
worthy.

Michael