Every so often, just for the heck of it, the “Theatre Person” in me acts up and demands that I consider something related to “theatre stuff” in these scribblings. The most recent case of this, was a mental insistence that I examine some of the things which I find amusing about the theatre and theatre people. In this case, that was probably primarily precipitated by my running across a column entitled “Curmudgeon” (indicated as having been “Compiled by Jon Winokur”) in a publication entitled Funny Times which was sent to me by my brother-in-law. This particular column was a compilation of quotes from famous actors discussing the art of acting. As happens fairly often with this sort of thing, I was both amused and annoyed by these quotes, much as I was (and am) often both amused and annoyed at how little some so-called “theatre (or movie) people” seem to actually know, or care, about their art’s lengthy history, or the MANY, often highly skilled and well educated, non-actors who are involved with any successful production either on the stage or on film. Far too many of these “Actoids” have become so focused on the skills that THEY think they understand that they believe that THOSE SKILLS are the only truly important ones. This belief is, of course, completely (and obviously) false, at least to prejudiced ME! I have indicated this belief to my students many time over the years by simply reminding them that the greatest cast of actors, performing the greatest script ever written, directed by the greatest director in the history of the world, etc. (Note: Those mentioned are only SOME of the non-actors involved.), are, in reality, just a bunch of folk wandering around in the dark, until some “techie” turns on the lights. It has often been the case, however, that I have probably been frequently ignored.
Edward Gordon Craig, genius that he may have been, became so insistent that, in order to achieve artistic greatness, a theatre production needed to become totally dominated by a single mind (preferably his), that he ended up suggesting that actors should be replaced by Uber-marionettes and a single person should write, design, direct (control) those puppets, and have COMPLETE ARTISTIC CONTROL over a production for it to satisfy the highest purposes of theatre. Now, in my opinion, that might achieve some form of art, but I do NOT think it would really be theatre. It’s also my belief that CGI (or hand drawn) movies may be quite successful (I’ve enjoyed quite a few.), but that they are simply NOT the same as the same script performed by human actors. I also believe that acknowledging that they aren’t the same, doesn’t actually denigrate either; it merely recognizes that both can be worthwhile, even though (perhaps even because?) they aren’t the same experience. But, I’m getting away from the humor which I promised to attempt, and which MAY WELL be key to understanding the differences among these variations on a scheme.
Actually, those differences might be summed up with two quotes from that “Curmudgeon” column. The first quote comes from Joanne Woodward, who is cited for having said that; “Acting is like sex. You should do it, not talk about it.” I tend to agree with that statement, as I believe that acting can’t really be learned, or explained. Some people can do it very well; others aren’t as successful; some really can’t do it at all. It seems probable (at least to me) that this activity can be enhanced through education and experience, but I don’t believe that one can start from a basis of NO natural talent or ability and “create” a truly good actor from anyone. I would also suggest that most people in any aspect of the theatre/movie business (probably any of the “performance arts”) are required to have at least some level of inherent talent and skill at whatever they do to contribute to the creation of the final product, be that product a roll of film, a digital archive, or an onstage performance, if they are going to achieve any real degree of success. I would suggest that that’s where Gordon Craig got it wrong. I believe that human interaction, collaboration is essential to the arts of theatre, cinema, and other performances. Without it, one MAY have something interesting, enjoyable, even worthwhile, but you don’t have the real thing! And, mind you, that collaboration does not just involve the cast and crew! No, the audience (who DO know that it theatre and movies are “make-believe”) are a part of the collaboration, as well.
I think, to get to the second quote I referred to above, that Alfred Hitchcock was touching on Craig’s idea when he said, “Disney, of course, has the best casting. If he doesn’t like an actor, he just tears him up.” That, of course, may (often does) lead to good animated movies, but a cartoon isn’t the same as a live action movie, as Disney has demonstrated numerous times, especially in recent years. And it may be worth wondering, if there wasn’t a difference, why the Disney studio would have bothered to make both cartoon AND human-actor versions of essentially the same story numerous times? I would suggest that the Disney people are perfectly well aware of the fact that the two really aren’t the same, even if it may not be easy to explain more than the obvious, superficial differences. But, I should get to my point.
Having spent most of my life in Theatre Education, I have often enjoyed the humor which revolves around the efforts to teach folks about the theatre, either generally, or about some specific area of theatrically-related knowledge or skill. I think it’s fair to suggest that high school (or younger) drama is the most frequently “picked on” for purposes of humor, and there MAY be explainable causes for that.
Such drama IS, of course, the most likely to display what might be called “lesser levels” of skill in theatrical techniques, although a fair number of such productions are often of pretty high caliber, perhaps because MANY teenagers are, in fact, quite skilled in acting, even if not in such things as “character creation.” See Foxtrot below:
Edward Gordon Craig, genius that he may have been, became so insistent that, in order to achieve artistic greatness, a theatre production needed to become totally dominated by a single mind (preferably his), that he ended up suggesting that actors should be replaced by Uber-marionettes and a single person should write, design, direct (control) those puppets, and have COMPLETE ARTISTIC CONTROL over a production for it to satisfy the highest purposes of theatre. Now, in my opinion, that might achieve some form of art, but I do NOT think it would really be theatre. It’s also my belief that CGI (or hand drawn) movies may be quite successful (I’ve enjoyed quite a few.), but that they are simply NOT the same as the same script performed by human actors. I also believe that acknowledging that they aren’t the same, doesn’t actually denigrate either; it merely recognizes that both can be worthwhile, even though (perhaps even because?) they aren’t the same experience. But, I’m getting away from the humor which I promised to attempt, and which MAY WELL be key to understanding the differences among these variations on a scheme.
Actually, those differences might be summed up with two quotes from that “Curmudgeon” column. The first quote comes from Joanne Woodward, who is cited for having said that; “Acting is like sex. You should do it, not talk about it.” I tend to agree with that statement, as I believe that acting can’t really be learned, or explained. Some people can do it very well; others aren’t as successful; some really can’t do it at all. It seems probable (at least to me) that this activity can be enhanced through education and experience, but I don’t believe that one can start from a basis of NO natural talent or ability and “create” a truly good actor from anyone. I would also suggest that most people in any aspect of the theatre/movie business (probably any of the “performance arts”) are required to have at least some level of inherent talent and skill at whatever they do to contribute to the creation of the final product, be that product a roll of film, a digital archive, or an onstage performance, if they are going to achieve any real degree of success. I would suggest that that’s where Gordon Craig got it wrong. I believe that human interaction, collaboration is essential to the arts of theatre, cinema, and other performances. Without it, one MAY have something interesting, enjoyable, even worthwhile, but you don’t have the real thing! And, mind you, that collaboration does not just involve the cast and crew! No, the audience (who DO know that it theatre and movies are “make-believe”) are a part of the collaboration, as well.
I think, to get to the second quote I referred to above, that Alfred Hitchcock was touching on Craig’s idea when he said, “Disney, of course, has the best casting. If he doesn’t like an actor, he just tears him up.” That, of course, may (often does) lead to good animated movies, but a cartoon isn’t the same as a live action movie, as Disney has demonstrated numerous times, especially in recent years. And it may be worth wondering, if there wasn’t a difference, why the Disney studio would have bothered to make both cartoon AND human-actor versions of essentially the same story numerous times? I would suggest that the Disney people are perfectly well aware of the fact that the two really aren’t the same, even if it may not be easy to explain more than the obvious, superficial differences. But, I should get to my point.
Having spent most of my life in Theatre Education, I have often enjoyed the humor which revolves around the efforts to teach folks about the theatre, either generally, or about some specific area of theatrically-related knowledge or skill. I think it’s fair to suggest that high school (or younger) drama is the most frequently “picked on” for purposes of humor, and there MAY be explainable causes for that.
Such drama IS, of course, the most likely to display what might be called “lesser levels” of skill in theatrical techniques, although a fair number of such productions are often of pretty high caliber, perhaps because MANY teenagers are, in fact, quite skilled in acting, even if not in such things as “character creation.” See Foxtrot below:
That is not to suggest that teenagers (or younger) don’t, in fact, work (or think that they work) on various theatrical skills (most commonly acting), but, unless they have careful instruction and close supervision, they can easily drift off into habits which may well be less than completely successful, on an overall basis, than is, probably, desirable. See Zits below:
I would hasten to point out, however, that we, adults, often make the mistake of placing unrealistic expectations on these young people. Now, I DO think that it is desirable to have audience members, even (perhaps especially) those who are NOT “close family members,” attend theatrical productions, which are clearly intended to be “AMATEUR (SCHOOL) PRODUCTIONS.” I do even think that those folks should place reasonable expectations on these students, however, and that they shouldn’t just indulge in what I call the “You were the best one!” syndrome with these young people. I understand the affection one has for one’s child, but it’s not necessary (or desirable, in the long run) to indicate that “your” child should expect to be “the BEST” at everything. Reality says: 1.) they WON’T be, in fact; and 2.) if the child honestly does their best, that should be the most important thing at that level. After all, even the “best” can have a “bad day” (and they DO!). Besides, the kids generally know when they have achieved a high standard and when they haven’t; lying about it really doesn’t make them feel better (and it makes you look stupid)!
It’s also true that such highly skilled performers as Katherine Hepburn have suggested that: “Acting is the most minor of gifts. After all, Shirley Temple could do it when she was four.” It may be unkind of me (or of Hepburn), but, having seen some of Shirley Temple’s early films, while she was a pretty fair dancer and singer (and, while she did, actually, survive her exploitation as a “child STAR” and became a productive adult), she WAS still a child; and much of her appeal, I believe, was that she was actually quite impressive for someone so young. So, while I am very fond of the cartoon, Shoe, I don’t really find this (below) quite as amusing as I suspect it was intended to be.
It’s also true that such highly skilled performers as Katherine Hepburn have suggested that: “Acting is the most minor of gifts. After all, Shirley Temple could do it when she was four.” It may be unkind of me (or of Hepburn), but, having seen some of Shirley Temple’s early films, while she was a pretty fair dancer and singer (and, while she did, actually, survive her exploitation as a “child STAR” and became a productive adult), she WAS still a child; and much of her appeal, I believe, was that she was actually quite impressive for someone so young. So, while I am very fond of the cartoon, Shoe, I don’t really find this (below) quite as amusing as I suspect it was intended to be.
I am also of the opinion that far too many people take far too much about theatrical work far too seriously. Yes, I’m quite familiar with the fact that theatre developed out of religious ritual, in MANY (most?, virtually all?) societies, AND that it was “recreated” within the Western, Christian tradition, after the Christian Church had gone out of its way to attempt to eliminate it because it’s roots were “pagan.” The best guess for this is because it was a powerful means of communicating ideas, especially to the poorly educated, which included most of the people the Church was trying to “educate” at the time. The fact is, obviously, true that theatre IS (or, at least, CAN BE) an effective way to express many sorts of ideas. And, it has the virtue of, often, being enjoyable, both because it usually tells entertaining stories AND because good performers demonstrate skills which many people find exciting to see displayed. I think It’s also true that the theatre can provide a pleasant social occasion to be with friends, family, etc., as this quite old cartoon from The New Yorker suggests.
But there are those who wish to suggest that theatre has a greater importance than it probably, in truth, deserves. The world would, almost certainly, survive without it, although I’m not completely convinced that that is true when I consider how much of our politics, religion, news, advertising, business, etc., is, in fact, closely based on certain aspects of theatre (frequently not particularly well-done). Our society is often so caught up in whatever is supposed to be the “latest, greatest thing” that we forget how little so many of these activities are actually related to survival, and how deeply they are invested in “hype!” Take this from Non Sequitur:
Or, one might consider THIS from Hagar the Horrible:
As one who spent his career in theatre; teaching some aspects of it and working in various capacities in it, I am, probably, incapable of suggesting that I don’t believe that theatre may well be the most perfect form of art ever conceived. I believe that the theatre draws on virtually every aspect of human learning and knowledge and at least assists in making some sense of most of them. Of course, I admit that this is a somewhat biased belief, but I do think that there is at least SOME truth in it, and I would welcome evidence of its incorrectness.
But, I do wish to emphasize that THEATRE has many aspects. There ARE a lot of people who think of Theatre as mostly just Acting, which just isn’t true. Acting is an ASPECT (a PART) of theatre, but it’s only that. There’s a lot more to theatre than acting, important as it is. As Sir Ralph Richardson (an actor) once suggested: “The art of acting lies in keeping people from coughing.”
I, perhaps, should also at least try to make clear (especially to regular readers who may not fully appreciate what I have meant when I have used the phrase “theatre person” in these comments) that I consider a “theatre person” to be one of those who has both an interest in, as well as some reasonable knowledge of, many of the aspects of theatre, regardless of the particular one(s) which may well be his/her general specialty. I believe that everyone wishing to be a “theatre person” (which, I believe, should be everyone in the business) should have at least a casual knowledge of the history of the theatre, including technical, theoretical and dramatic aspects, and some fairly broad familiarity with dramatic literature, ideally of the world, but (to make it reasonably manageable) at least within the traditions of the kinds of theatre present in her/his general culture. I would also suggest that a true “theatre person” should have at least had some exposure to current theatrical practices in business, marketing, etc. And, of course, achieving all this does require at least some (basic, at least) knowledge of political history, philosophy, religion, etc.
That’s a lot to learn, but I maintain that it IS possible, even if I do admit that I am still pursuing that knowledge after a busy lifetime. What I suspect I mean, most simply, however, is that one must become aware of (and accept) that NOTORIETY is not, necessarily, a mark of the most desirable knowledge and skills. Michael Caine, the British actor, may be best known for his film work, as is true of many performers, although he has been quite an accomplished stage actor, as well. In any case, he has commented that: “A movie star gets a script and says, ‘How can I change this script to suit me?’ An actor gets a script and says, ‘How can I change me to suit this script?’”(emphasis added) To my way of thinking, Caine seems to be much on the same track as I am in mentioning this difference between a “movie star” and an “actor.”
I strongly believe that he would agree with me that there is much more to being a “theatre (or film) person” than just showing up and being famous. I can, of course, only really speak from my own experience, but those whom I would consider the most successful theatre workers, may not have been the biggest “stars,” but they have been the best people, aware of the fact that theatre is a group effort, what my wife refers to as a “TEAM ART.” Some individuals may get most of the public recognition, but the best of them realize that they need the help and support of many others in order to gain that, and they respect those others and what they bring to the art.
I think a great example of this sort of thing was quite clearly expressed in the wonderful “theatre techie” comic strip, Q2Q, which shows a lighting and a sound technician discussing the review of their most recent production and achieving great joy at NOT being even mentioned. I’ve been there, I understand. It can be a WONDERFUL feeling.
But, I do wish to emphasize that THEATRE has many aspects. There ARE a lot of people who think of Theatre as mostly just Acting, which just isn’t true. Acting is an ASPECT (a PART) of theatre, but it’s only that. There’s a lot more to theatre than acting, important as it is. As Sir Ralph Richardson (an actor) once suggested: “The art of acting lies in keeping people from coughing.”
I, perhaps, should also at least try to make clear (especially to regular readers who may not fully appreciate what I have meant when I have used the phrase “theatre person” in these comments) that I consider a “theatre person” to be one of those who has both an interest in, as well as some reasonable knowledge of, many of the aspects of theatre, regardless of the particular one(s) which may well be his/her general specialty. I believe that everyone wishing to be a “theatre person” (which, I believe, should be everyone in the business) should have at least a casual knowledge of the history of the theatre, including technical, theoretical and dramatic aspects, and some fairly broad familiarity with dramatic literature, ideally of the world, but (to make it reasonably manageable) at least within the traditions of the kinds of theatre present in her/his general culture. I would also suggest that a true “theatre person” should have at least had some exposure to current theatrical practices in business, marketing, etc. And, of course, achieving all this does require at least some (basic, at least) knowledge of political history, philosophy, religion, etc.
That’s a lot to learn, but I maintain that it IS possible, even if I do admit that I am still pursuing that knowledge after a busy lifetime. What I suspect I mean, most simply, however, is that one must become aware of (and accept) that NOTORIETY is not, necessarily, a mark of the most desirable knowledge and skills. Michael Caine, the British actor, may be best known for his film work, as is true of many performers, although he has been quite an accomplished stage actor, as well. In any case, he has commented that: “A movie star gets a script and says, ‘How can I change this script to suit me?’ An actor gets a script and says, ‘How can I change me to suit this script?’”(emphasis added) To my way of thinking, Caine seems to be much on the same track as I am in mentioning this difference between a “movie star” and an “actor.”
I strongly believe that he would agree with me that there is much more to being a “theatre (or film) person” than just showing up and being famous. I can, of course, only really speak from my own experience, but those whom I would consider the most successful theatre workers, may not have been the biggest “stars,” but they have been the best people, aware of the fact that theatre is a group effort, what my wife refers to as a “TEAM ART.” Some individuals may get most of the public recognition, but the best of them realize that they need the help and support of many others in order to gain that, and they respect those others and what they bring to the art.
I think a great example of this sort of thing was quite clearly expressed in the wonderful “theatre techie” comic strip, Q2Q, which shows a lighting and a sound technician discussing the review of their most recent production and achieving great joy at NOT being even mentioned. I’ve been there, I understand. It can be a WONDERFUL feeling.
I’ll be back in a couple of weeks, I suspect. I wonder what sort of thing I’ll get into then?
🖖🏼 LLAP,
Dr. B
🖖🏼 LLAP,
Dr. B
RSS Feed