I normally don’t want to use this blog to rant against my day-to-day mundane annoyances (especially since regardless of how much my day sucked, I am always grateful that I’m not being forced to wear a burqa, or have grenades and machine guns going off right outside my loft’s windows), but the Chicago Tribune’s imbecilic, condescending, and unfunny article entitled Theatre 101, totally ruined my morning commute (not to mention my ability to make flirty eye-contact with the cute buzzed-cut blonde guy at the Ravenswood train station platform). Who writes dyslexic crap like “When the play ends, there’s a blackout, then the lights come back on and all the actors come on stage to take a bow. This is when you should clap.”? Was this meant to be satirical? instructive? clever? Was this meant to disprove the fact that human communication is more advanced than pigs snorting or goats bleating? Or what about this gem – “People who go to the theatre are snooty. Okay, this is partially true.” Anyone who thinks this moronic sentence belongs in a piece of writing that supposedly aims to encourage more people to go to the theatre is probably in a crystal meth haze.
Nov 02
November 15th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
I agree and disagree with our beloved Francis on this one. While elementary, the Tribune article is straightforward and is what it calls itself: theater 101. Agreed that no theater-goer would need to read about what to do when the lights go out. But I think the author was being sincere in reaching out to non-theater-goers to help them know what to expect in seeing their first play. The snooty comment is a lame attempt to show empathy.
The sincerity doesn’t help the cause, though. We don’t need articles like this one to help get young people involved in theater. In other words, if I was a 24 year old “athletics studies” major that had never been the the theater, this article would not have spurred a visit to the Steppenwolf, much less the store-front theater down the street.
The magic of theater is the fact that there are ACTUAL PEOPLE in front of you, attempting to convey emotions and create situations. And they’re trying to make a personal connection with you, the audience.
Maybe non-theater goers, who I (maybe unfairly) assume watch loads of television would understand this analogy: Just like with business meetings, an “in-the-flesh meeting” with these actors, rather on the screen, really helps convey what the actors and situations really mean. In a good scene, for example, the audience may feel uncomfortable not only because the actors are in an uncomfortable situation, but also because the audience is there, too, and can feel the energy from stage.
I’d love to see an article in the Red Eye about this. Red Eye because it is what most of the non-theater-goer Northsiders read because it is free and easy. Maybe an article with the RIGHT kind of encouragement would get more such readers to visit a local theater.
November 16th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Hi Alex – as always thoughtful and clearly articulated. I agree that non-theatergoers, and even some casual theatergoers, need some form of a context, a primer, some background information to heighten the appreciation of a theatrical work. But I do also strongly believe that the capture of that theatrical magic you are referring to is significantly dependent on the visceral reactions of the audience to the work. Artistic context isn’t all in my mind.