Theatre/Spectacle (fwd)

[susan heald]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 11:27:04 +0000
From: Mark Fisher <fisher at easynet.co.uk>
To: susan heald <heald at CC.UManitoba.CA>
Subject: Re: Theatre/Spectacle
 
>Your passive/active distinction is interesting for me.  I had been
>thinking of spectacle in terms of things like Carnival in various
>Caribbean countries, which are far from passive; in fact, very little
>theatre "engages the audience" (though I confess to being a bit unsure
>what that means) to the extent Carnival does.
>
>I also find it interesting that you, like other respondents, are so clear
>that theatre is preferable to carnival.  Given the class, and sometimes
>racial and national characteristics of the people who seem to engage more
>with spectacle, I'm inclined to wonder just what we're doing when we make
>these hierarchical distinctions.
>
>What do you think?
>
>Susan Heald
 
I know I made the remark about Phantom of the Opera, but I don't
necessarily mean to be heirarchical. If there can be good theatre and bad
theatre, there must also be good spectacle and bad spectacle. Maybe the
distinction - and I'm thinking on my feet here - is that theatre affects
you through the brain /intellect and spectacle affects you through the
heart/instinct. The point is that both affect you. If a spectacle doesn't
make your heart beat a little faster, then it's probably not a good
spectacle. In the light of what someone said about about rock concerts, I'm
coming round to thinking that this is a better definition than the
active/passive one.
 
I'm sure you've got a point when you talk about the heirarchical
distinctions in relation to class, etc. The limitation of an
educated/middle-class approach to theatre is that it is much better at
quantifying and pinning down ideas and concepts than it is at expressing
emotions. Just at the point when everyone in a huge audience instinctively
shivers, gasps, cheers or laughs at some element of a spectacle, the
academic vocabulary dries up. I wouldn't be surprised if the educated
(white, male, whatever you want to call it) class is distrustful of
spectacle because it can't quantify it; can't explain it in its own
language; can't control it.
 
The closer we look at this, the harder it becomes, possibly because
spectacle *is* theatre, and straight theatre often features elements of
spectacle. When I suggested the active/passive distinction I was adapting
my own pet theory about the difference between film and theatre. If in
general I prefer theatre to film, it's because I prefer to feel like I'm
part of the event rather than a passive recipient of it. I felt like a
passive recipient in Phantom of the Opera, I probably would if I sat on the
back row of a big West End theatre, and I would at a big stadium gig, but I
wouldn't expect to at a carnival, in a stand-up comedy club or a small rock
venue where the audience is almost invariably a significant factor in the
quality of experience. This, of course, is a matter of taste, and there are
many people who prefer to be swept along than - and here's that word again
- to be engaged.
 
Does that get us any closer?
 
I meant to send my last message to the whole Candrama list - maybe you
could forward it - and this - to it for wider discussion . . .
 
All the best
 
Mark Fisher (fisher at easynet.co,uk)