|
|
|
|
Articles
|
|
|
Articles |
Theatre and KidsDateline: 4th April, 1999 Should we be worried about the survey reported on last week's news page? Out of 160 kids questioned, only one gave drama as a leisure interest and the general view seemed to be that theatre is not "cool", that it is far less "real" than soaps and film, and that their main experience of theatre, pantomime, is considered "babyish". The parents questioned spoke of the lack of suitable plays available and the cost of theatre tickets. The kids themselves wanted plays which are relevant to their lives and dealt with topics that were of interest to them. Girls expressed some interest in musicals but they had very little appeal for boys. I have only seen a summary of the results of the survey and so cannot pronounce upon its validity. It is not even clear what the age group of the children interviewed was and one might consider that a sample of 160 from just two places is too small to draw meaningful conclusions. However, in spite of these reservations, it has been enough to start people worrying. Are they right to be worried? When I think back to my own (pre-TV) childhood, I do remember going to the theatre fairly frequently, but it was to see variety shows rather than plays. I also remember going to the cinema once a week, as well as to the children's Saturday morning cinema club where we saw a cartoon or two, a serial (I think I got my love of Science Fiction from the Flash Gordon serials I saw there!), and a main feature. I did see some plays, I know that, but all I have is a vague recollection of some figures on a stage which was, I felt, miles away and didn't seem to have anything to do with me. And yet, look what's happened to me! A theatre freak - going to theatre, making theatre, writing about theatre, teaching theatre. I made my first appearance onstage at the age of 12 in a school play and haven't looked back since. Yet I don't know why I started. I cannot for the life of me remember making any decision of the "I will become an actor" variety: it just seemed the natural thing to do, somehow. Even then I didn't actually go to the theatre much. In fact, I only remember one visit: I was part of a group from the school drama club who went to an outdoor production of Macbeth in the courtyard of Durham Castle when I was about 14 or 15. Most of my Year 7 kids have seen more theatre than that! In these days of straitened education budgets, visits to schools by Theatre in Education or Young Peoples' Theatre companies are less frequent than they were fifteen or so years ago, but there is still much more than in my day. In fact, by the time they come to us at eleven, the kids in our feeder primary schools will have seen five of our shows (in their own school and in ours), in addition to the companies that have come in from outside. These shows (both ours and TIE companies') are aimed at their age group, with themes which have an appeal for them - and, generally speaking, their reactions confirm this. And yet, according to this survey (and my own experience), kids prefer TV and cinema. We shouldn't be surprised; they always have. There is a sentimental picture, to which we all fall prey at times, of a golden age of childhood in which, fuelled by books, children's imaginations were much more vivid and wide-ranging than today. As I say, it's a sentimental picture: it was true - obviously! - of some children, but then it's true of some today. For the majority their imaginations dreamed of what they knew, only with themselves in the leading roles. Dylan Thomas had it right: Young girls lie bedded soft or glide in their dreams, bridesmaided by glow-worms, down the aisles of the organ-playing wood. The boys are dreaming wicked, of the bucking ranches of the night and the jolly-rogered sea. Their imaginations didn't conjure things out of nothing: they worked on what they knew. I simply do not accept that there was ever a time when children had wonderful unfettered imaginations! Blame it all on Wordsworth:
The problem is, something seen onstage is much more difficult to believe in than something seen on the screen, big or small. As one kid said in a response to the survey: how can it be real when someone who is killed gets up to take a bow at the end of the play? Theatre requires either a very childlike mind (when we did did some extracts from The Wizard of Oz for an infant school audience, one of my girls, playing the Wicked Witch of the West, was most upset when some of the children burst into tears when she looked at them!) or a very sophisticated one. Just think of what theatre requires of you: you have to believe that you are not sitting there surrounded by many other people, that you are watching a real scene being played out before you, but you have to ignore the fact that it is being played out in an area which is lit far more brightly than in real life, in front of scenery which is obviously painted. You have to accept, too, that an interval of darkness, or even the closing and re-opening of a curtain, signifies the passage of time. (That's very superficial, I know, but you understand what I mean.) Compare that to the naturalism of film or TV. Once we are used to the idea of a moving image, and that is something all living generations are used to, it is difficult not to believe that what we are seeing is reality. That's why people confuse soap actors with their roles, and why TV news has such an impact. It all looks real, and so we accept it as real. In contrast, we need a "willing suspension of disbelief" to appreciate theatre. And that is a sophisticated and adult idea. Some people never develop that kind of sophisticated imagination: their acceptance of what is "real" is very limited. They need the trappings of a naturalism - the realistic set, characters who are like people they know, plots which are within their experience (in their own lives or on screen) - and so they go for soaps and realistic dramas, for broad comedy and farce, and for the Hollywood blockbuster which is carefully targeted at just this sort of person. That's why theatre is a minority interest, why musicals are more popular than straight plays, and why even the popular musicals need spectacle (such as the Miss Saigon helicopter) and have to be melodic. Regardless of any artistic consideration, Sondheim will never be as popular as Lloyd Webber because he does not fit this profile. That's why I'm not surprised that kids prefer cinema and TV - and why I'm not in the least worried about it! Articles Indices: |
|
|