Thursday, October 26, 2006

 

You Say You Want a...What?

Theatre Weeniness ahead. Silliness later.

Still recovering from my trip to Portland this weekend. And now I’m going to try and assemble a thought, out of the scattered puzzle-pieces that litter my brain as they do my kid’s floor. I swore I would only be a Monkeyboy from now on. Perhaps there’s hope for that still. But.

I found discussion from MattJ and Maya of Michael Feingold’s broadside at theatre in the Village Voice. I’m all for broadsides, and I got excited. A call to arms, from a major critic! But -- not unlike Feingold’s response to Wrecks and The Prime of Miss Jean Bordie -- I was left cold. It seemed so broad a side that it hit very little.

Is the review a shot against minutiae-driven theatre? That can be dull, yes, or it can be invigorating: Chekhov? Pinter? It depends on who’s holding up the motes for examination. It depends on whether or not an audience has the wherewithal to focus on minutiae. Sometimes people want to get to the blood already. Sometimes they aren’t at a point in their lives where they can comprehend what they’re seeing. Would you send a fifteen year-old to even the best production of Three Sisters and expect comprehension of the thing? Maybe LaBute missed the mark. Okay. Does that mean we trash all minuitiae-driven theatre because it too might miss the mark?

Is the review a blast against wax-museum, corporate, “boring” theatre, as MattJ suggests? Okay, we all hate to be bored in the theatre, but this is about as useful a point as, “I hate shows that suck.” If Feingold was bored by these plays, okay, but “Don’t be boring” is not a banner to gather forces under. It’s a negative, one that can’t be agreed on. I would lay fat wads of cash that there are pieces that this guy would find meaningful and this guy would find interminable, and the other way around. Lots of stuff can be boring. Music. My collection of sweaters. So?

Is Feingold’s first paragraph the salvo?

Why do we go to the theater? Supposedly, it enriches our life, in any of half a dozen ways.We get thrills, we get meaning, we get laughs, we get music and dance, we get glamour and excitement; we get issues framed to raise our hackles and questions raised to make us search our hearts.

I’m sorry, but that’s too general. I could ask for the same from a party, or a relationship, or hell, even food. Yes, we all want that. But how do we get it? That’s the interesting question.

In fairness, I haven’t seen Wrecks but probably won’t based on trusted friends’ assessments. Miss Jean Brodie I saw about a million times in high school, and I won’t be running out for tickets. Feingold could be spot on in his summation of the productions, but I think it’s the prior paragraphs that got folks juiced. And I don't see what's so juicy.

Okay, this is turning into a review of a review ("I also couldn’t stand the sidebar, with American Apparel’s crotch-based ad campaign"). That’s lame. Feingold’s an excellent writer. I just don’t get this one. So I offer a question: what is the revolution that this article calls for?

UPDATE: Maya Gurantz's response here.

UPDATE II: Also, discussion at Mr. Excitement and Parabasis.

Labels: theatre

posted by Dan 1:45 PM
|