|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Articles
|
||
|
Articles |
Spectacular Theatre - Some MeanderingsDateline: 24th June, 2007Spectacle is certainly an attraction, but it is the least artistic
of all the parts (of a tragedy) and has the least connection with the
art of poetry. The tragic effect is possible without a public performance
and actors; besides, the organisation of Spectacle is more a matter
for the costumier than the poet. We've got to reclaim spectacle - the spectacle of ideas, of form,
of passion. Audiences don't want to see what they can see on TV. We
must be magical, or suffer the consequences. The latest piece of spectacular theatre to hit London, The Lord of the Rings, sent the citics to extremes: "If," says Michael Billington, "Tolkien's trilogy is to be a stage spectacle, I don't see how it could be better done." Sam Marlowe called it "a brave, stirring, epic piece of popular theatre", but Charles Spencer referred to "tiresome grandiosity with mind-rotting mediocrity". But, says the BTG's Philip Fisher, "even if visitors cannot suspend their disbelief, they will be blown away by the show's incredibly high production qualities which owe more than a little to a £12.5 million budget, equivalent to the cost of a fairly useful international footballer or a new hospital." So, is spectacle a minor part of theatre, a essential or a replacement for suspension of disbelief? Of course, the answer is all three, because the three quotations (or two quotations and one set of quotations if we're going to be pedantic, which I usually am) with which we began this article all use the word in different ways - and, indeed, are talking about different kinds of theatre. But the quotations do raise some interesting ideas about the nature of theatre - and give us a warning that it is too easy to fall into a lazy way of thinking. Theatre is vast, ranging from Shakespeare to Ray Cooney, from Mother Courage to The Moustrap, from tragedy to thrillers, from the theatre of ideas to light comedy, from political theatre to music theatre to physical theatre, from ballet to contemporary dance to opera. They're all part of theatre. Not everyone likes or is interested in every aspect: there are those for whom theatre is a species of light entertainment, encompassing comedies, thrillers and whodunnits; some love music theatre but rarely even think of attending a "straight" play; some want theatre that pushes the envelope; some find their pleasure in the classics; some... but why go on? It's a truism to say that people like what they like and will pay to see it. It is interesting to note, however, that Joe Average is more likely to pay a lot of money to see a piece of music theatre than Harold Pinter or to watch a soap star in a thriller than Simon Russell Beale in Shakespeare. And he will regard those who prefer Pinter or Beale as posh and/or intellectual, whilst those who swing the other way will look down on Joe for having plebeian tastes. For we have a tendency to create hierarchies: we like to say that A is better than B but not as good as C, and so on. We do this in theatre in many ways. One hierarchy will have theatre which makes demands on its audience at the top and that which makes no demands at the bottom. Others rank types by appeal: that which appeals to the majority at the top (or bottom), and that which appeals to the smallest minority at the bottom (or top). Or else we establish an art—entertainment continuum and rank according to that. And even within these multitudinous categories there are a multitude of approaches, from a bare open space with nothing but the actors to hugely complex scenery with even more hugely complex stage machinery, lighting and soundscape. And, of course, all gradations between. This we might call the spectacle continuum. So what do we mean by spectacle anyway? It's pretty obvious that Aristotle doesn't mean the same thing as Neilson, and the spectacle of The Lord of the Rings isn't what either of them are talking about, but the clue, as always, is in the derivation of the word. It comes from the Latin spectare, to look at, and so obviously it refers to the visual aspect of theatre. Aristotle counts "poetry" (today we would, perhaps, prefer "text") as the most important ingredient of theatre - indeed, the quotation above can be interpreted as meaning that spectacle = performance and so performance is not actually really needed. British theatre tends to lay primary emphasis on text whereas much of contemporary European (and particularly Eastern European) theatre would give at least equal billing to the visual. This, I think, is what Neilson means, at least in so far as it applies to Dissocia: there we see inside Lisa's mind in an entirely non-naturalistic way which is reminiscent of the sort of work which comes out of Eastern Europe. The second half of the play is entirely naturalistic, so determinedly so that it teeters on the verge of dullness. The latter comment, by the way, is opinion, not fact! But today the word spectacle has acquired overtones of "large scale", "impressive", even - perjoratively - "overblown" (or Spencer's "grandiosity"). This is the meaning implied when it is used by critics in reference to shows like Lord of the Rings. Indeed, I would suggest that the modern usage actually suggests a value judgment, implying that spectacle is per se inferior to other aspects of theatre and a spectacular piece is in some way poorer than one which is not spectacular. Oh yes, and those who say so will cite Aristotle in support! The conclusion to all this meandering? There isn't one, except to say that theatre is very much a broad church and that, if we are to make value judgments about different kinds of theatre, we'd better have some good arguments ready because there are always going to be a lot of someones who disagree!
|
|
|
|