May 10, 2007

When does theatre work?

nik smythe          posted 10 May 2007, 03:48 PM

At John’s suggestion, the intention here is to consolidate and continue some of the interesting issues raised in the prior mega-forum about devised theatre, which was originally a query about legal ownership rights but became a debate on the very workings of devised theatre itself, in contrast to scripted work.

The various arguments raised in that thread to me can be categorised together as a debate about what works in theatre and what does not, and why?  For instance, if a devised piece seems cloudy or self-indulgent, what has caused that?  It’s glib and closed minded to suggest it is simply because the work was devised.  In most cases the responsibility would lie with the director, as most plays have one, devised or not.  And if they do not, I would expect that’s the key factor to a show not working.

I recall, many years ago, watching a documentary about acclaimed American theatre director Harold Clurman, who during his career created numerous stage sensations and a number of flops.  He spoke about, and I’m paraphrasing here, people who talk to him about a show he’s put on which is failing, and they’ll always say ‘What happened Harold, why didn’t it work?’, to which he replied ‘Why do you ask me that now?  Everyone wants to know why a show didn’t work!  Why don’t people ask why a show does work?  When we produce a hit, that’s when we should be asking ‘what happened?!”

I realise that is also glib and a tad simplistic because of course it is useful to examine a flop to learn from its mistakes.  But hopefully you get the point.

So the purpose of this thread is to examine more deeply any specific triumphs and/or defeats with a view to progressing and growing as a theatre community, whatever form it may take.