It's hard to shed criticism on a long lost relative, and like we often are afraid to speak ill of the dead, we do the same in the theatre.
1) Either we proclaim the play obsolete and a mere byproduct of its time or 2) We praise it because it has gained some classic status (and often makes us look estimable that we could see the Emperor's New Clothes.)
Case 1) "It's dated" Unless a play or movie or book is set in a vacuum, it will ALWAYS be 'dated.' Language changes, clothing changes, laws change - so what? It's a meaningless comment. Every piece is set in a time, but it's the ideas of the play that should be timeless. It's the crew and casts job to take you to that world. When the highest grossing film, Avatar, is about blue people, if the filmakers can make that world seem realistic, then theatre artists should be able to make the true depiction of the 1700's or 1920's come alive. Maybe the ideas in a play have become quaint, the laws of the play are outdated - but with a good play, there is always something to experience and learn. It should transport us to that world, small as it gmay be- take us to that timeperiod. It takes a skilled company to pull this off. Anyone can create a National History Diorama, faded, ancient people- dressed in period clothes, standing in position, holding a dinosaur or rowing a skiff while covered with inches of dust. They are museum pieces - they don't speak to us when done as artifacts caught in amber. Recently, several NY theatres have presented great classics - little known Williams' plays, lost classics about artists without talent determined to make it in the world on ambition alone, or a Pulitzer Prize winning medical drama - they all have timely issues, but they were all were done to the detriment of the play. Old plays, covered in dust and amber, may have their place to the collector, but not in my world. Art must be functional. Again, "Rare", "first ever", "First professional" all littered these plays' press releases - and more often than not, factually incorrect.
Critics had one of two extreme knee jerk responses to these plays:
Crucify the material and the playwright. As these plays haven't been seen by most people, they trust the production is the gospel. Sadly, it's so warped by not setting the play in it's time, of course it come across silly. (And, as few people actually invest the time in to doing their research aside from the propaganda filled press kit, this false knowledge gets passed on to the public.) It's funny that we play so politely with hack artist's feelings, yet we brutalize those, mainly the playwrights, who clearly have the goods.
OR, the experts proclaim, "We're just so thankful to getting the rare chance to see ____________." Like an exhibit of traveling gemstones, it gets praise just for being rare - despite all the flaws in the jewels. It's like dusting off a rare, inferior Van Gogh and praising it because of its rarity. This is also very dangerous. (See Lincoln Center's acclaimed Golden Boy. Few had the skill or nerve to call it out as a dud. Instead, the reviews blared "But it had 19 actors! That ALONE makes it a landmark." zzzzzzzzzzzz) Whether the play is new or 75 years old, it needs to live and breath and be of importance.
Yes, artists are certainly allowed to fail, it's vital, but don't bill yourself as something more than you are. For these 'event productions', proclaiming assumed importance can only be detrimental to the play. The play is bigger and should outlive you.
PART 3 - Dirty Finger Prints
No comments:
Post a Comment