tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post114857838524146277..comments2024-02-27T16:59:54.089-05:00Comments on (The New) Theatre Ideas: Be Careful What You Wish ForUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1149028577604312582006-05-30T18:36:00.000-04:002006-05-30T18:36:00.000-04:00Scott,I might feel differently today, but you are ...Scott,<BR/><BR/>I might feel differently today, but you are Cassandra in this equation. "They" wont listen!<BR/><BR/>DVDevilvethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01425758108288436683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1148658380060249852006-05-26T11:46:00.000-04:002006-05-26T11:46:00.000-04:00George, the point isn't that Ibsen, Strindberg, et...George, the point isn't that Ibsen, Strindberg, et al have nothing to teach us, but rather that they use techniques and reflect aesthetic attitudes that are based in a particular time and place and that may not be right for and relevant to today. They should not be taken as a model to be slavishly followed any more than the Greeks and the Elizabethans and what Brustein called the Theatre of Communion. I believe that artists of the past should be held at arm's length and their pockets should be picked for anything that is useful, but useful for <I>today</I>.<BR/><BR/>I wrote my dissertation on Brustein; I admire Brustein; I think he may have been one of the most important critics of the second half of the 20th century. But I also find his admiration of this priest with his distoring mirror problematic. Theatre is a communal art, not only in its creative process, but in its need for an audience. Unlike, say, a book or painting that can wait for another generation to discover it's value, theatre that is not seen now disappears in the mist of time. The attitudes illustrated in Brustein's portrait, I would contend, do not serve the theatre well.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04177922467901223790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1148653309171058132006-05-26T10:21:00.000-04:002006-05-26T10:21:00.000-04:00"Irrelevant," really? "Self-absorbed, grotesque, a..."Irrelevant," really? "Self-absorbed, grotesque, angry, ironic, and wielding a distorting mirror. Oh, and significantly: alone"?<BR/><BR/>So long as we ask writers to create a theater "truly vibrant, imaginative, meaningful, stimulating, and most importantly, reflective of the 21st century and not the 19th" (and what does that list of theater-ad pullquotes mean, anyway?), dismissing the rest as irrelevant, old-fashioned, no longer to the taste ... well. Brustein provides examples: Ibsen, Strindberg, Chekhov, Shaw, Brecht, Pirandello, O'Neill, Artaud, Genet ... clearly nothing to learn from them, not for our young tyros. (I think Matt owes you a note of thanks for this helpful advice.) So out of sheer curiosity, what writers in particular did you have in mind?<BR/><BR/>But with an attitude like this, you've certainly got the "alone" part right, especially following that so extraordinarily generous and insightful characterization of this picture of the artist. Thank you for that. It warms my heart.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1148636652588555402006-05-26T05:44:00.000-04:002006-05-26T05:44:00.000-04:00See my responses in my blog !See my responses in my blog !DLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11971226704327883196noreply@blogger.com