To me this is what Peter Brook was trying to say about the deadly theatre and what it is. This form of theatre is what we often see as it is closely linked to the commercial theatre which is mostly attacked but criticism. “The Deadly Theatre can at first be taken for granted, because it means bad theatre” I think when Peter Brook says this he doesn’t necessary means bad theatre. I think he just means it is different to the normal theatre we are used to, but then It can also mean that some plays on the theatre are good, for example when it has a happy ever after at the end, but the deadly theatre can be seen as bad theatre as not every play ends with a happy ever after. I think this quote suits my idea very well; “if we talk of deadly let us note the difference between life and death” (hope that makes sense)
I think with what I said before about the deadly theatre not having happy ever afters at the end of every play is proven through these 2 quotes:
“The Deadly Theatre finds its deadly way in grand operas and tragedy in the plays of Molière and the plays of Brecht”
“Of course nowhere does the Deadly Theatre install itself so securely, so comfortable, so slyly as in the works of William Shakespeare, the Deadly Theatre takes easily to Shakespeare”
I think that the Deadly Theatre fits in with Shakespeare comfortably because most of Shakespeare’s plays don’t end with a happy ending, for example Romeo and Juliet both die and then in Hamlet, Hamlet dies immediately after achieving his revenge.
This stood out to me when I was reading the essay but I don’t know why “Anyone who watches the real success as they appear each year will see a very curious phenomenon.”
“Deadly Theatre approaches the classic from the viewpoint that somewhere, someone has found out and defined how the play should be done”
I don’t know if you going to read this Mr Pope but my questions is:
How can only one man walk across a stage whilst someone else is watching him and that is all that is needed for that act of theatre to be engaged? Why did Peter Brook do that?
liam says: Deadly theatre I found this a rather confusing concept, but I can only say how I interoperate it to be. I see deadly theatre as the archetype that tries to be pure. What particularly stood out was the paragraph on the works of Shakespeare being acted how we expected "we rush to the label", "Again with Shakespeare we hear or read the same advice". I believe we it is a mutual though, we hold these canons of the english language with such height regard, we feel when we portray them to do so different we be tainting the work. So to me 'deadly theatre' is works which can not be changed because there is a fear of doing so. Once again thanks Gall-agger [:)]
The Term Deadly theatre could be used as an insult as it basically refers to to theatre productions which have lost their "inventiveness" due to a variety of catalysts like repetition without reinvention's, lack of imagination, ineffective performance techniques that do not have an affect on the audience anymore as the message has been lost in the mist due to performances being observed as a piece of entertainment rather than a tool to open a window on understanding and realization of these mere bubbles we live in as we need to wake up!! and to be more imaginative and experimental to create a different metaphysical atmosphere towards the audience as they have been numbed into perceiving everything as a entertainment rather than a learning curve, this is why the word "deadly theatre" has been coined.
Deadly Theatre is more the theatre of commerce, set up just to make money for its producers. It's the theatre of imitation, trying to mimic the box office successes of the past. This affects all aspects, and permeates all levels of production. The Directors rely on the old clichés and gimmicks of the past without exploring the texts for their deeper meanings. The Actors do not move past the emotional facades of the roles, playing the surface knee-jerk reactions that they get from text, resulting in stereotypical portrayals.
The Deadly Theatre
ReplyDeleteTo me this is what Peter Brook was trying to say about the deadly theatre and what it is.
This form of theatre is what we often see as it is closely linked to the commercial theatre which is mostly attacked but criticism.
“The Deadly Theatre can at first be taken for granted, because it means bad theatre” I think when Peter Brook says this he doesn’t necessary means bad theatre. I think he just means it is different to the normal theatre we are used to, but then It can also mean that some plays on the theatre are good, for example when it has a happy ever after at the end, but the deadly theatre can be seen as bad theatre as not every play ends with a happy ever after. I think this quote suits my idea very well; “if we talk of deadly let us note the difference between life and death” (hope that makes sense)
I think with what I said before about the deadly theatre not having happy ever afters at the end of every play is proven through these 2 quotes:
“The Deadly Theatre finds its deadly way in grand operas and tragedy in the plays of Molière and the plays of Brecht”
“Of course nowhere does the Deadly Theatre install itself so securely, so comfortable, so slyly as in the works of William Shakespeare, the Deadly Theatre takes easily to Shakespeare”
I think that the Deadly Theatre fits in with Shakespeare comfortably because most of Shakespeare’s plays don’t end with a happy ending, for example Romeo and Juliet both die and then in Hamlet, Hamlet dies immediately after achieving his revenge.
This stood out to me when I was reading the essay but I don’t know why “Anyone who watches the real success as they appear each year will see a very curious phenomenon.”
“Deadly Theatre approaches the classic from the viewpoint that somewhere, someone has found out and defined how the play should be done”
I don’t know if you going to read this Mr Pope but my questions is:
How can only one man walk across a stage whilst someone else is watching him and that is all that is needed for that act of theatre to be engaged? Why did Peter Brook do that?
How can an empty space be called a barestage?
liam says:
ReplyDeleteDeadly theatre
I found this a rather confusing concept, but I can only say how I interoperate it to be. I see deadly theatre as the archetype that tries to be pure. What particularly stood out was the paragraph on the works of Shakespeare being acted how we expected "we rush to the label", "Again with Shakespeare we hear or read the same advice". I believe we it is a mutual though, we hold these canons of the english language with such height regard, we feel when we portray them to do so different we be tainting the work. So to me 'deadly theatre' is works which can not be changed because there is a fear of doing so.
Once again thanks Gall-agger [:)]
Deadly Theatre...
ReplyDeleteThe Term Deadly theatre could be used as an insult as it basically refers to to theatre productions which have lost their "inventiveness" due to a variety of catalysts like repetition without reinvention's, lack of imagination, ineffective performance techniques that do not have an affect on the audience anymore as the message has been lost in the mist due to performances being observed as a piece of entertainment rather than a tool to open a window on understanding and realization of these mere bubbles we live in as we need to wake up!! and to be more imaginative and experimental to create a different metaphysical atmosphere towards the audience as they have been numbed into perceiving everything as a entertainment rather than a learning curve, this is why the word "deadly theatre" has been coined.
Deadly Theatre is more the theatre of commerce, set up just to make money for its producers. It's the theatre of imitation, trying to mimic the box office successes of the past. This affects all aspects, and permeates all levels of production. The Directors rely on the old clichés and gimmicks of the past without exploring the texts for their deeper meanings. The Actors do not move past the emotional facades of the roles, playing the surface knee-jerk reactions that they get from text, resulting in stereotypical portrayals.
ReplyDelete