Question about the theater.

A

Angelshare1

Well-known member
This is My Dinner With Andre. A two hour movie about a couple of friends talking about the theater, life, and the world we live in in general. Pretty much the whole thing takes place at a restaurant table. Anyways, at 1:11:45, what are they talking about? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNyf06gQvAI

They are talking about the sad state of the theater. Help me understand this better though.

They seem to talk about superficial theater vs. the German playwrite Bertolt Brecht style. Based on the stance of their argument and the time of the film (1981), what are some examples of superficial theater and theater done in the Brecht style?

I never went to film school or been classically trained, just books from the film section at Barnes and Noble, so I'm trying to understand what was going on with the theater at the time.

Thanks!
 
I'm not sure what he means by "clasical" perhaps Stanislavsky and "The Method", but Brechtian, also known as "Alienation" or "Anti-illussionist" makes the viewer aware that they are watching a piece of theatre, rather than immersing themselves in the "illusion" of the performance.

This often involves very stark non-natural lighting, projected scene titles or video, as well as possibly actors in abstract, perhaps all-black costume in an abstract set.

I'm by no means an expert, and there are no doubt others with a deaper understanding on these boards, what I've picked up is from lighting innumerable school theatre studies examination performances which have run the full gamut of styles, sometimes over 5-or 6 pieces in one night.
 
Angelshare1, modern theatre is probably always being discussed as being in a "sad state", "dying", "in crisis"... with new visions being proposed of where it should go by innovators such as Brecht. For a good introduction (written by an innovative director with vast experience) into "kinds" of theatre you could read Peter Brook's The Empty Space, or The Poor Theatre written by the inspiring director Jerzy Grotowski (who figures in the film you mention). Their ideas will guide you away from "superficial" theatre as far as is possible. An excellent anthology to consider is Playwrights on Playwriting (edited by Toby Cole), which will introduce you to many other innovators, beginning with Ibsen. I guess the moral of the story is that we can be thankful to the people in theatre who are always experimenting and making theatre mean something.
 
I always hate these arguments. Theatre means so much more to some than it does to me and I work in theatre, even for my video work. Personally, I find the famous theatre practitioners, especially Brecht, and I'd drag in Craig and even Berkoff into the category of the kinds of theatre I avoid. I hate passionately theatre that requires me to think - the bit about passing the head around the audience is typical - this kind of theatre leaves me cold. I fall into the category of superficial theatre, I l;ike being entertained. I remember very well, one particular play by Berkoff - Metamorphosis. The bits I'd seen in pre-production or from the wings on a casual visit let me know it wasn't one for me. During one performance, when I had to take a group of theatre students to see it, to my shame I fell asleep! It took ages before I realised he was an insect! Far too complicated and abstract for me. I like to sit down and be entertained with content that keeps me awake and happy. Superficial it may well be - but more people go to see it than what we tend to call the more highbrow stuff. I understand that theatre that pushes boundaries and makes people think may well be good for them, but so is a visit to the dentist.

In fact, the clip you directed us to is for me the trigger that says this movie is in the same class as Brecht's work - damn boring!

I know I'm a cretin, common or uneducated (which actually I'm not) - I just really hate theatre for theatre addicts. I've had to teach it, though thankfully not as my main subject - which was production, not performance. I need a decent story, and for it to be interesting.


Brecht also impacts on my lighting designs. I don't think I'm good at Brecht at all. The idea is for the instruments used to be visible so the audience know what they are watching is not reality - when for most of my other lighting work, reality is in effect, exactly what I'm trying to do - make people think the island really is in the South Seas, and the setting sun is real, and shafts of light coming in through windows are real. Can't do that with Brecht because it's not reality. I love colours to stimulate emotions - the Director in a Brecht production always wants white - nothing but white! I can't imagine watching a movie shot so you can see the studio gadgets and that the actors have scripts to read and makeup being applied.

Is theatre entertainment? I think it should be, others, typical of the characters in the movie clearly disagree!
Paul
 
Don't get too hung up on specifics of Brechtian style -- I think Gregory's point is that he feels the modern theater is often superficial, in the same way you hear people complain that movies in the '70s (Altman, Bergman, Coppola, etc) were more interesting, relevant, weightier, while still being entertaining, than movies today, when it seems there's nothing but superhero movies and their sequels. I don't think Gregory is implying everything should be done in white light with title cards announcing each scene.
 
paulears said:
In fact, the clip you directed us to is for me the trigger that says this movie is in the same class as Brecht's work - damn boring!

I know I'm a cretin, common or uneducated (which actually I'm not) - I just really hate theatre for theatre addicts. I've had to teach it, though thankfully not as my main subject - which was production, not performance. I need a decent story, and for it to be interesting.
Click to expand...

A couple of points. There was a version of "Die Zauberflöte"(1975) directed by Igmar Bergman. As I recall there were shots of the crew 'doing things' during the intermission. It has been so long since I've seen the film... I can't really remember most of it.

But for me 'most theater' is boring... One of the great things I like about film is the development of a verisimilitude to 'reality'... even if it is a schizophrenic Salvador Dali wetdream reality... (For example the dream sequence in "Spellbound"(1945), or most recently, "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus"(2009)). No 'theater' experience has ever given me the same effect.

With that in mind, I have pretty much avoided "My Dinner With Andre"(1981)... and any other pretty much 'straight out' performance of 'theater'.

Perhaps in the olden days, I had more appreciation for 'Brecht', the 'radical' message delivered via theater... but these days, I'm tending for a Wedeknind 'entertainment+message', if I were to go for 'theater' at all... rather than adapting a Wedekind play to screen... I think his works are now in the Public Domain, since he died in 1918, so even by German copyright law, life+70, I think his german works are available... there may be translations which are still covered...

And yes, I do prefer Polanski's "McBeth"(1971) and Branagh's "Henry V"(1989), to any stage performance...
 
I guess I belong to that group of people who both just like doing theatre and talking about it (yes, sometimes even watching it). I like the "thinking something up" process, "having things come to me/us on their own" process, the feeling of the theatre space itself during rehearsals, the endless "manual labour" involved (well, actually...)... and yes even discussing (and re-reading) "boring" theory... in the last piece I was involved with we had a blast talking about McLuhan and having him become part of the piece... boring to many, sure, but "entertainment" to some.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top