Seattlest: Thoughts on How to Save the American Theatre

TroyJMorris

Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:26:03 -0800

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/385619_music30.html Top down is top stupid.

TroyJMorris

Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:20:08 -0800

ZING!

ChrisB

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:03:29 -0800

Having just gotten back in from the forum, I am convinced that the theater scene is perfectly comfortable lodged up its own dichotomous behind. I'm all the more frustrated by the fact that watching that was more entertaining than the last play I saw.

Jeremy

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:03:13 -0800

mvb--I agree generally with your characterization of what makes "momentous theatre," but I think you misinterpret my point. I'm not arguing for anti-gay plays per se, nor controversy for its own sake. I'm saying that theatre has willingly accepted a limited vocabulary, and that is today retarding its ability to speak. Furthermore, you're not really talking about the theatre, you're talking about good theatre. Anyone who goes to the theatre hopes for something that powerful and memorable and is more often than not (unless you're lucky or only take the advice of a very good and harsh critic) disappointed. And there's nothing wrong with that. Most novels and movies and albums aren't good. Why should theatre be any different? That's why it's important to think about the mediocre, to look at the sum total, to recognize the importance of what's happening with bad theatre. Risk taking is what leads to the truly groundbreaking, powerful and memorable. But the ability to take those risks is reflected in the majority that's not worth seeing. Are they taking risks? Audience members, too, have to be willing to take risks, risks by trying new things, risks by gambling the ticket price accepting that, as I already mentioned, more often than not the night will be forgettable, sometimes even a complete disappointment. The point about having actually bigoted theatre (which I of course don't want to see, really) is that it would give theatre consequences. Consequences require a response. Imagine how powerful gay theatre could be today if it responded to today's realities instead of rehashing the fears and paranoias of the 1980s? What's so sad about Angels in America (which has always been one of my favorite plays) is that it should have been the end of that entire modality. It raised the stakes, carved out new ground, promised a new future beyond merely mythologizing (in a good, progressive, effective way) the experience of AIDS and the silence of Reagan and the hatred of the religious right. Instead, gay theatre stagnated, comfortable in its own skin, and frankly stifled by political realities created by the fact that gays finally had some representation. The great failing, I think, of gay playwrights, is that when the fight left the theatres and entered the halls of government, they took the political arm's demand to shut up to heart. And so today we have the strange situation in which contemporary gay experience is not well represented. But I think I digress. You surely get the picture. Shallow political mudslinging back and forth may not make your momentous theatre, but it surely spurns its creation when needs demand it.

TroyJMorris

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:42:20 -0800

AH! Too short of notice and I can't make it. I'm very excited. The number one issue facing theater is getting into the daily lives of the city citizens. Theater is foreign. When someone asks you "Whadda ya wanna do?" I can bet that a play rarely crosses one's mind. That's step one. Become a presence. Become a celebrity. When I was going to high school, people from all over would come into town to see Theater Sports. Why? Drew mother-fucking Carey. Everyone is flipping their shit for Lion King, High School Musical and Shrek because they know it. They get it. Be apart of the community, theater. And then community, be apart of art. Mayor Nickles, I've been thinking we need a HUGE renaissance in this City of Emeralds and Jets. Create a public art guild, not fund. Let it be it's own beast with charity events, but endorsed and has some city management. Make it a place for artists of all types to get together with businesses to have more street performers, musicians in shops, let muralists and graffiti artists paint every barren piece of city property, etc. It's feasible to create a plan with business and neighborhoods to make art LIVE through the city (the actual city, not the government city). I was in the UDistrict transferring buses on Friday night and a group of college kids were fucking around with electronic toy instruments to a large crowd of onlookers. Why is this happening there? Because everyone thinks it's cool and it helps businesses get more customers around their product in the hopes they'll stop in. I was in Chi-town and every fucking store with food or drink had a musician playing. We can do this. We just have to make it easy for artists and enticing for businesses by giving them a venue to work together. Then, when art is a part of the city community, theater will live (and our rock scene will kick ass again and maybe we can start publishing some books). Look, this is just some dumb comment with zero editing based off of one 20 minute bus ride of thought. But I think it's worth investigating how to entice art growth in our city. Oh yeah, and science too. Can we have a really cool mayor now?

MvB

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:38:45 -0800

Let me just say this as an addendum to your last point: an "anti-gay" play is ultimately just as tired as a "pro" one. I think the issue is that living art challenges categorizations like that. So art is not just the representation of the diversity of existing viewpoints--it's the creation of new ones, too, planned or not. That actual straying out of bounds--as opposed to the pretense of unconventionality that leads to hipster choir-preaching--is what makes a play feel momentous.