After that foray into my murky and embarrassed past, I suppose I must continue. Because I am not going to write a play, or compile a lyrical poetry slam. Because I know, know in my butterfly filled former actor stomach, that it's never as easy as it seems. I have seen plays soar, suck me in whole, haunt me, challenge me. More often have I experienced the gut wrench of an actor on stage three feet from me sweating nausea, waiting for the next line to enter her teflon brain. Or yawned as the story petered off into a morass of confusion and boredom. Or cringed as a missed moment of timing spun the performance into a wild and frightening wobble. I dread bad theater the way most reasonable people fear death by violence.
The thoughts of such nightmares visited me on the train into work this morning. I've seen two very different performances of All In The Timing, a David Ives masterpiece of writing. Playful, funny, touching, true and very complicated. I saw it handled masterfully, impeccable timing - light touch. I was laughing too hard to breathe. Or I was struck breathless at the juxtapositions.
Then. Later. A small liberal arts theater program tried one of the funnier chapters. (A program notorious for making a botch of another disremembered play.) It hurt. It was over the top, it was wrong, it was far worse than hearing a bagpipe band out of tune, off station on the radio, at full volume, on earphones. I felt they were trying to distract me. Subtlety be damned, this was COMEDY! I almost bit through my thumb. I was not amused.
Actors hate Our Town. I admit, I didn't hate it the first time I saw it. After repeated viewings, in my role as Always the Usher, Never the Ingenue, I began to detest it. It is too easy, too facile, too predictable, too complete. Too neat. Too pat. Actors no doubt are bored in it. I begin to wonder if it was secretly meant as parody. It is a play that is almost impossible to fuck up. Even done badly, it has a durable charm, for those who have not seen a lot of other plays. Nearly pandering to sentimentality. Maybe not nearly.
Peter Pan is much the same, and another yearly money maker for many a theatrical company. Hard to get a handle on why it's popular, and what is wrong with it. Christmas Carol has the same quality. These plays are straightforward, unchallenging, with simple morals, and pretty sets. Very forgiving to inexperienced actors. Filling in coloring books for artists.
I pondered the idea of really great play writing being not quite so accessible. Harder to do right, far worse when it goes wrong. And it takes great writing, great acting, decent production, and an attentive audience. It takes engaged actors in love with the words. All done right, it opens a door to elsewhere, with ambiguous lessons, indescribable humor, and transformed reality. Which is also why it can crash so fast, so hard. Never offers an easy way for poor-to-mediocre actors who don't understand what they are saying. The difference between playing the Kazoo and playing violin. No violinist would be tempted, but I would certainly choose kazoo, if asked to chose which to play. It wouldn't be good, but it wouldn't hurt so much, just the once.
And this is why I won't write plays, nor ever be an actor. I would be an Our Town writing kazoo player. Art doesn't need any more mediocrity.
9 comments:
"The natural condition (of live theatre) is one of insurmountable obstacles on the road to imminent disaster. Strangely enough, it all turns out well."
"How?"
"I don't know. It's a mystery."
--Geoffery Rush, as Phillip Henslowe, from Shakespeare in Love
I would add 2 things: there is room in the world of theatre for predictable, actor-as-robot plays. The audience needs a break from reality once in a while, and that's fine.
Secondly, and I speak from experience, he or she who consciously tries to be original and write The Play (or Novel or Whatever) brilliantly is doomed to certain failure to write at all. Again from experience, it's a matter of letting your "real" voice come out, and if it turns out that your real voice is capable only of writing an episode of All My Children, so be it.
Ah, you've answered the question I asked somewhere along the way in Pi ...
Interesting. I tend to agree with Poor Mad Peter. As a member of the audience and not a performer, a solid diet of one type of theatre can lead to overload. (I personally don't need Peter Pan, but I am very fond of A Chrismas Carol ...).
And I think PMP's last sentence sums it all up.
PMP,
You quote my favorite line from that movie. Of course, it's wrong, as anyone who has fallen asleep during a performance can attest.
Two words: Ed Wood.
Saw an improv group take on Christmas Carol, involved a possessed yo-yo. Not intentionally, mind. The yo-yo came off the string, as expected, a minor bit of business. Then it took off, rolled all across the stage, and back, and back again from Christmas future to Scrooge and his ghost and back another time. Being improv folks, they went along, knowing the audience was watching only the errant yo-yo. An actor who had not been onstage, a character not supposed to be in the scene, eventually just walked on, 'spied' the yo-yo, and pocketed it, walked off.
Hehe!
I firmly believe in there being a place for the accessible. As well as the need for challenge. The world is large enough for both.
And yes, I agree with PMP's last sentence. One finds one's voice and that is what one has to offer the world.
You do write dialogue excellent well.
Love the yo-yo story.
Ed Wood? How about Michael Cimino? Ken Russell?
Actually, I think that Henslowe was not speaking from the standpoint of audience satisfaction, but from the troupe simply "getting through" the night without the entire thing collapsing. And somehow, it does turn out well, most of the time, in that sense.
PMP,
Quite right.
Still, sometimes probably would be better for the actors to just throw up their hands in the second act and say...
"Look no one is enjoying this, it's not going to get any better, let's just all call it a night and have a beer? Ok? Show of hands?"
The show-of-hands idea could have rescued many a evening. But who is to say? I have walked out of plays that others have happily sat through, and seen people leave the Ring Cycle at the Met where I was spellbound.
Hooray for "Shakespeare in Love", and Tom Stoppard in general.
I think that live theatre is the high wire act of performing literary arts. In other words, it goes wrong, if it goes wrong, with the artists and public present to one another. And that means, as you say, live bombs (I've sat through one or two), but equally possible (hopefully) live transcendence (ditto).
And udge is right: I'd add that the sheer unpredictability of the thing is what makes it so edgy. And come to think of it, even chestnuts like Our Town can bomb live, when, as W.C. Fields once put it, "Things happen!"
Post a Comment