How would you explain theatre history to someone who doesn’t know anything about it? Where does it start? What are the major elements to consider? Who are the key players? Are there any problems or controversies that arise when trying to plot theatre history timelines?
Shakespeare.
I feel like shakespeare is a cop-out in this situation.
I’d explain that theatre at its most basic boils down to ritual entertainment, that tragedy came before comedy because survival comes before fun. That prehistoric shamans were the first “actors” who portrayed their gods and such as they danced around the fire to grant blessings to the hunters. That the rise of civilization, specifically the Greeks, allowed for tragedy and comedy to become entertainment rather than survival mechanisms. And then move on from there, touching passion plays and such during the Dark Ages and then on to Shakespeare, etc.
I feel it’s more important to get the Greek/Roman methodology down before you even touch Shakespeare. You have to understand where tragedy and comedy came from in order to appreciate the history of theatre, and how theatre changed over the course of several thousand years, and how it has stayed the same. And then and only then can you truly appreciate Shakespeare’s timelessness and relevance.
uhh, this may be too broad to address in a single conversation. the question underlying this is whose history? shakespeare and the greeks are not the foundation of say, first nations theatre history. but then being canadian and what not and us being a metaphorical multicultural fruitcake i have access to the traditions and current works of many cultures…maybe this is the controversy you were looking for ian?
Shakespeare.
hey anon:
Tastes Great!
no, no wait, actually:
Less Filling!
I guess I’m most interested in that first question:
How would you explain theatre history to someone who doesn’t know anything about it?
So you’re at a party and someone says to you, “I don’t know anything about theatre history. How does it work?”
And you wouldn’t be able to just throw out a bunch of names of important people because they wouldn’t mean anything to your audience. It’s an honest question, how would you answer it?
Generally, I’m interested in learning more about the major historical trends in theatre.
I think the Director address this well in his comment, and his brief explanation leaves plenty of room for First Nations performance traditions.
When did theatre start? When did we start writing it down? What are the commonly regarded benchmarks of its progression? Are there major disagreements in academic circles about these benchmarks?
I think someone who doesn’t know anything about theatre history would have to be taught a few other things first. Like how to read and write. And how to tie his/her shoelaces.
And here I thought you were going to ridicule me for going to parties where people talk about theatre history.
;-)
I’d also say that, for most of theatre history, there were two forms: community theatre (theatre done by community members whose livelihoods came from elsewhere — the Greeks, the Medieval Mystery plays, even to some extent the English Restoration), and theatre troupes (groups of theatre people banded together in a collective to do theatre — commedia, Shakespeare, Moliere).
Some trends over the 2500 years of Western theatre history:
1. From religious to secular
2. From outdoor to indoor
3. From local to global
4. From dominant to peripheral
5. From communion to revolt (thanks, Robert Brustein)
We have spent 2500 years telling stories in order to derive a pattern from the universe and determine meaning for our lives.
perfect. i knew we needed a professor to get somewhere with this. thanks scott. incidentally, i took 2 years of seminar classes with brustien and he never brought any of this up, which i would have found really interesting…i think he kind of broke up how he talked to actors and how he taught academically.
Hi Scott,
This is great:
“Some trends over the 2500 years of Western theatre history:
1. From religious to secular
2. From outdoor to indoor
3. From local to global
4. From dominant to peripheral
5. From communion to revolt”
Thanks!
Cinema is a kind of theatre, and should be included in this discussion. Let the outrage & denial begin.
And on this track, how important is a solid grounding in theatre history for a new generation of theatre makers? Is it essential, or could it possibly hamper the development of new forms or ideas?
instead of making my own argument, i will steal from tara b’s post in response to cole’s 10 questions. she’s talking youtube and tv, but film fits as well:
communion.
yes, yes, yes!
it is the thing that is strengthening “reality tv” and anything interactive on the net. sadly, these offer a sense of false, impersonal community.it is only theatre that invites you into a room to feel other people feeling right along with you, as a story is being shared.
I am tired of hearing people saying that. Bull. I have seen vast, vast amounts of theatre in my life, and loved lots of it, but NEVER have I said to myself while doing so, “oh golly gee, this is happening right now! I feel so connected to the other people in the audience!”
AND I’ve gotten major intimacy buzzes while watching YouTube. In other words, people need to start genuinely describing their experiences, and stop parroting the party line.
Sorry Mike, but my BS detector just went BING BING BING.
@ anon…
I think that is a fair point about cinema, I see theatre all over the place; on the street, the train, in the bar…it’s everywhere. And at some point theatre morphed into film as another aspect of itself, and quickly overtook the live form in popularity.
Where is the intersection between theatre and film now? There are some people here in Van exploring it, a company called The Virtual Stage just produced a version of Sartre’s No Exit wherein the actors performed in a small enclosed room that contained a bunch of cameras, and the audience watched the action on 3 screens projected on the rear wall of the theatre. The critics raved about it.
Personally though, I get a completely different experience by being in the same room with the performers.
surprise anon, i disagree.
separate from whatever vocabulary you use to describe it, the thing that sets theatre apart from other media is that it necessarily involves live bodies in the same space as other live bodies telling a story.
you tube, tv, film, none of them have that element. and whether you’ve experienced communion or not it changes the experience drastically. there’s no re-dos, or fixing it in post.
it’s here, now, today. it will never be the same twice. the show you see with the audience you are a part of is a unique experience no one else will ever have. it’s one of the reasons i like it so much.
There’s a great speech in the 1951 film “All About Eve” re what constitutes Theatre, in which a playwright rants: “Eleonora Duse, Donald Duck, it’s all Theatre!” … You should watch this film.
I still don’t believe you, when you talk about feeling connected with the community and the moment. I think you’re talking about what you WISH you felt. I’ve only felt that feeling during calamities; blackouts, earthquakes, car accidents, etc; I felt it on 9/11. I have seen some great, great theatre in my life, sure, but I would have enjoyed it even more if I had more elbow room. I am talking frankly here.
now that i’m 31, my mom made me take all the stuff i’d stored in her house last weekend. i have multiple shoe boxes full of mainly 2 things:
1 – proof that i attended Toronto Blue Jay related events 1984-1993.
2 – proof that participated in or attended significant theatrical events 1994-2008.
in either case, the impetus to save these ticket stubs, programs and posters was the same:
this thing happened. there was a finite # of us who were there and either created or witnessed this event. it is gone forever, but this thing proved i was part of it.
i breathed the same air as Yanna Macintosh when she performed the Syringa Tree at CanStage and my screams reached Pat Borders’ eardrums when he pulled that home run over the left field wall against the Braves. it wasn’t a significant SPIRITUAL experience, but clearly these facts meant something to me.
Okay. FYI, Helen Mirren once bumped my elbow with her her bum as she did a scene in “Orpheus Descending” at the Donmar Warehouse in 2001. That was pretty sweet.
I like the communion idea, and I’ve been consciously aware of this on at least a few occasions that come readily to mind.
A theatre in Rochester, NY, used to have an annual season-ending 2-night playreading festival. I’d go straight from work each night and be there until 11 pm or maybe later (I would’ve happily stayed all night). It was like being part of a secret society or attending a family reunion. The atmosphere was casual and welcoming and exciting, the faces in the audience were friendly, enthusiastic, and familiar, and we’d see the same actors come back year after year, always telling us how they looked forward to this time of year and this special event. I know for a fact that many who attended (both those on and off the stage) felt incredible communion.
Another example that comes to mind is when I traveled to Toronto on the weekend after 9/11 to see 3 plays. All 3 plays seemed like they had to have been written in response to 9/11, although 2 were at least 50 years old. I vividly recall the impression that nobody in the audience would even dare breathe to break the spell of what we were experiencing. There was none of the common disruptions (coughing, candy-wrapper rustling, phones beeping, etc.). Only rapt silence. I always felt that theatre was my religion, and this weekend cemented that feeling. In the immediate wake of 9/11, everyone was turning to their religion for answers.
Wow! Nicely said Mary.
Film is not theatre, in the same way that photography is not painting. Don’t elide art forms. Aristotle made this point 2500 years ago when he made a clear distinction between theatre and epic, another storytelling art form. Theatre is 3-dimensional, here-and-now, live, local; film is 2-dimensional, there-and-then, past, and global. They should not be confused.
Should young people ignore theatre history for fear of being unable to innovate? Only if you want TV and YouTube to become the model for the way stories are told. The fact is that for the most part young theatre artists DO ignore theatre history, and it has been to the detriment of the theatre, which has become trivial, superficial, and little more than live TV. The art of the past is not a model to be imitated, but a repository to be mined.
Not a pattern from the universe, but an experiential understanding of ourselves, together, in it. Finding patterns is easy; it is how we relate to one another that is hard.