Sunday, March 23, 2008

Week Ten: Brook, "The Rough Theater"

Though the excerpt from the Brook article, “The Rough Theater,” was fairly brief, it contained a lot of interesting information. I had never really thought about the architecture of theater before the article brought up many very interesting points. For instance, a rough theater can be more engaging than a clean cut, incredibly stylized theater performance/showing. While this seems like common sense after thinking about it, I had never really considered that to be true. Raw performances just seem to have more character overall. There is more of a chance for audience interaction with the performers because there is no expectation or uncomfortable urge to sit still and just “enjoy the show” in silence because of clean, seemingly perfect surroundings. In posh, sophisticated settings, audience-performer interaction during a show would be seen as inappropriate and rude, at least in most settings, but if a show is designed to be rather crude and simple, as far as style goes, and the theater itself is more homey and inviting, then a whole new atmosphere opens up and allows for an entirely different viewing experience. Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder in this sense, since all of it is merely based on opinions rather than fact.

Brook also brings up an interesting point in the article when there is a reference to prisoners in San Quentin being able to appreciate something as sophisticated as Waiting for Godot from their confinements in prison simply because it is constructed in a more simplified form. If those same prisoners were to go to a fancy, upper class theater in London, England, to see that show or a show of a similar style, then they would be completely lost because it would not be spoken in a language that they could understand, even if it was actually spoken in English. There are so many different levels of the English language that even people who speak the same language can come face to face with a language barrier of sorts.

One of the most interesting aspects of the article is how Brook discusses ways of simplifying stories to get the same effect. In a time where spectacle is more important to the Hollywood blockbuster than story is, for the most part, it was nice to see an analytical mind thinking about ways to simplify theater and get back to basics, in a way. Using flour to show someone white with fear is almost ingenious these days, since it is not even thought about with the use of makeup or even color alteration in post production with computers and other technologies.

Lastly, Brook discusses the idea of viewing shows outside of normal viewing areas as being more enriching than going to the theater or something of the sort. Though Brook is talking more about live theater than movie going, I can relate to what is being said. Outdoor theater allows for more interaction, and incorporating local jokes or slang phrases that more people would relate to is a great way of connecting with the audience. Personally, I think that going to film viewings that take place outdoors or in a setting other than a movie theater, such as a film screening with a projector and a white sheet in some guy’s garage, are more enjoyable at times than just going to see the run of the mill Hollywood blockbuster in a seat with a cup holder in the armrest and sticky candy on the floors. It allows for a nice break from reality in a visual sense, and it’s just a way to get outside of the realm of normalcy for a little while. Overall, it just creates an entirely new viewing experience all together, and I think that was the point that Brook tried to make in “The Rough Theater.”

No comments: