Considering the Essence of Theatre

“It’s easier to destroy than to create.”

Not sure I agree with that sentiment too much, but it certainly does give one cause to stop and ponder.  As I’ve been struggling with what I should write about for this installment, this dystopian statement keeps surfacing for some reason. From a theatre artist’s perspective, a statement like this would seem obviously antithetical to what we do as theatre artists.  But, sometimes, a little destruction - or perhaps DECONstruction - can be just as valuable as creation.

As we look ahead to the new year, it always seems appropriate to wax optimistic and endow the upcoming year with unlimited potential.  An associate of mine reminded me the other day that right now, there are five shows currently in production/rehearsal.  One of these is “Vanya & Sonia & Masha & Spike,” which is currently running at the Carriage House (and yes, you should definitely see it!)  However, I’d like to think that the readers of this column are fairly well-versed in the upcoming performance calendar, so I will continue to to pay homage to my very polarized muse.

As I begin my final semester in my Master’s program, I’m reading many of the foundational pieces of literature that have become the sets of guidelines for practicing theatre across the globe.  While each author certainly approaches the art from a different cultural perspective, virtually all of them agree that theatre is generally created to impart a strong basis for morality into its audience.

Truth be told, this is the opinion I’ve maintained for quite some time.  Only recently - and by recently, I mean within the last few years - I’ve allowed that opinion to alter somewhat, or perhaps evolve.  I would like to say that, in this stage of my understanding of theatre, I believe that this art is mainly a laboratory in which civilization learns what it means to be human, warts and all.

Of all the performing arts, Aristotle suggested that theatre was the most imitative.  Further suggesting that all performing arts imitate “reality,” he proposed that theatre can be more visceral as it is more representative of life as we observe it, more so than say music or dance.  However, based on reading many of these prototypical works, it would seem that their authors also anticipated a universal response to the observed work of art.  These authors structure their forensic analyses of theatre in such a way, that their suggested codified application of theatre as an art, as well as its expected outcomes, are nothing but irrefutably logical.  But, if there’s anything I’ve learned about theatre, it’s that it often has the potential to defy all logic.

As an ongoing discussion for the class I’m currently teaching at the college, I ask my students to consider the concept of audience perspective, more specifically audience reaction. In my many years on the stage, I’ve often been fascinated by the idea that a group of entirely diverse people can watch a play and have the same response; whereas a group of like-minded people from very similar cultural backgrounds can watch a play, and have as many different opinions as there are people in the group.  Regardless of the theatre artist’s intended purpose, it’s inevitable that someone (or many) just plain won’t agree with what’s being presented.  Moreover, as we delve deeper into the age of social media, it’s become starkly apparent how easy negative reactions can be expressed, especially when the critic belches these unfortunate opinions while hiding behind an avatar.

But, in the long run, this is why I feel we do theatre, not just to elicit the responses we’d want, but rather just to elicit responses.  I’ve often referred to theatre as a gymnasium for empathy: we go to the theatre to give those “muscles” a good workout.  Sometimes, the best workout is one that is not expected.  And, regardless of the reaction, if a reaction is provoked, the theatre artist has done her/his job well.  The word “theatre” comes from the ancient Greek word “theatron,” loosely translated as, “a place to see/watch.”  I’ve eluded to this idea many times in my column, but I’ll bring it up again: many of us do what we do on the stage for you, the audience, to see or watch a specific concept illustrated by the playwright.  It is a communication style that is designed to allow an audience to observe the many peculiar behaviors and reactions that motivate humanity, and allow an appropriate avenue for reaction.  Be that reaction positive or negative, the reaction is genuine, and possibly more valuable to the individual audience member’s perspective than initially realized.

So, I encourage you to keep watching, but moreover I challenge you to begin or continue to engage in what is being presented.  It’s not wasted breath, I promise you.  If you end up not having the reaction that the theatre artist intended, that is the catalyst of conversation; and thus, the laboratory experiment has been complete, perhaps inspiring new experiments.

I’ll see you at intermission!