Theatre vs. Spectacle

[Eric Armstrong]

Bruce has a good point re the Theatre vs. Spectacle debate currently
"raging."  Could we simplify this discussion by merely changing "vs. " to
"AND" -- Theatre and Spectacle.
 
There is a prof. I know who runs his "intro to theatre" class as a
discussion of what defines theatre. His famous "question" for the class is
"Is the Superbowl theatre?" Personally, I don't care to discuss whether it
is or not. OED defines Spectacle as "A specially prepared or arranged
display of a more or less public nature (esp. one on a large scale),
forming an impressive or interesting show or entertainment for those
viewing it." Theatre, on the other hand, developed (as a word) out of the
word for the building in which these dramatic events took place.
 
I think the discussion needs to focus itself around the question "What is
the purpose of spectacle in contemporary theatre?" -- We might get some
very interesting discussions going. Does spectacle draw us in? Does it lead
to alienation? (I am always hearing people complaining about the effects in
major musicals. The grandeur of it seems to be built for the "value for
money" - you can see the product of your $70 ticket right on stage.)
 
My greatest spectacle-moment as a "spectator" was at a show put on by a
Spanish company Suz-o-Suz at the Montreal Festival des Ameriques. This
"punk" show assaulted the audience, literally terrifying us with threats of
water fights, paint fights, displays of animalistic rites, tribal ritual,
and really bad rock music. Though it sounds dreadful as I describe it, it
was a visceral, thrilling experience, with a hidden narrative that slowly
developed out of the mayhem evolving around us. At first I thought I was
experiencing a sophisticated version of capture the flag, but by the end, I
was drawn into a truly dramatic experience. An extremely memorable
experience.
 
Though this kind of spectacle is not appropriate for all theatre, I think
we need to define what makes theatre something different, and ultimately
BETTER, than film or tv. Spectacle - and its visceral, here and now,
rollercoaster ride of experience makes theatre a personal event. A nude
scene in a movie makes us merely voyeurs. A(well-directed) nude scene in a
play makes us co-conspiritors, victims or even perpetrators in a theatrical
event. If I understand correctly, this is the feeling/thinking arguement
presented earlier, albeit with a little twist.
 
I remember reading an article in the Atlantic Monthly  where a movie critic
went to the theatre. He HATED it. He kept being reminded that he was there
- in the flesh - with real people. This made him feel embarassed. He wanted
desperately to get back to his annonymity, his voyeuristic (his word) place
in the cinema, where his judgement didn't affect the performer. (Though as
a critic, ultimately HIS judgement did...)
 
This is my first post to CANDRAM. I look forward to your responses.
 
 
 
 
Eric Armstrong
--------------------------
The New Voice Guy at
The School of Dramatic Art
University of Windsor
(519) 253-4232 ext 2811