The Deadly Theatre

Just answering the questions in a bloggy format~

1. Is theatre nothing more than entertainment?
No, theatre is not. Theatre is a medium for creation and a form of expression that can honestly bring about change and bring to light society's problems that need to be brought to life. Theatre is a revelation.

2. How does the Deadly Theatre take easily to Shakespeare?
It is a fact that in many cases that although the works of Shakespeare could be performed by competent actors with appropriate setting, costumes, music, lighting, publicity, etc... it is also, in the end, boring. It is easy to take the 'great works' of the Bard of Avon and and cast them into Deadly (boring) Theatre without intending to.

3. Is "boringness" a certain guarantee of a worthwhile event?
Although Brook writes that "boringness" is often a reassurance of a worthwhile event, I personally would not as far as to say a "certain" guarantee. The right balance is difficult to find, and sometimes a boring work is just that: boring.

4. What role does mediocrity play?
Mediocrity in a work gives the audience a sense that everything within the work could indeed happen, and this slight element of realism can draw them in.

5. What is the difference between passing down "meaning" and "manner"?
Passing down the "meaning" is to pass down the heart, the essence of a craft and thought which will in turn shape its own unique matter with each person. When meaning is passed down, the art itself will last. However, when the "manner" is passed down alone, there is no heart to it. The art itself will be a husk of a craft and have no soul to fill its depths because it is a copy, and a dissimilar copy at that, of one who practiced the art.

6. Is it true that "the best dramatists explain the least"? Can you think of some examples from plays you have seen or read?
I can think of several examples from literary works, but drawing from the theatrical productions I have seen, the first example that comes to mind would be the Phantom of the Opera, who explains little his motive for monopolizing Christine, yet conveys so strongly in a beautiful and chilling manner, just how his strong his obsession is. Particularly in the final scene (SPOILER WARNING) when he releases both Christine and Raul after she kisses him, this is true. Christine never explicitly explained why she kissed the 'monster and the Phantom never entered any expository sequence on why he released the pair. There was no explanation, and that made it beautiful.

I can also express first-hand the difficulties portraying something that has previously been labeled with a word. Although my onstage experiences are few, I am no stranger to acting in words, and certainly no stranger to characters. I participate actively in what I call, 'acting in text format', or text-based roleplaying, and the best part is always bringing a character to life on a page. Often times, however, I discover a story I wish to join, only to find that the characters have previously been granted cheap throwaway characteristics. I found it incredibly difficult to convey these presented characteristics in a realistic manner because... well... they were just so blatantly there. It wasn't a nuance that I had created through the understanding of my character, and the words would not flow from his lips. (And then when I decided to throw the skeleton personality out the window and let the character grow as he wished, one of the other roleplayers called me out, but that is a story for a different time.) With this small change, however, I felt that I had managed to better portray something as vague as "generous" and "kind" in a more realistic and complex manner.

7. How can you go from Deadly Theatre to Living Theatre as an actor?
To bring theatre to life, one must simply forget any notion of a 'perfected style' that one must emulate, and instead bring a flavor of your own to the piece itself.

8. How did Peking Opera lose its connectedness to the life of society around it?


9. At the heart of the meaning of Living Theatre: "theatre is always a self-destructive art, and it is always written on the wind." What is your interpretation of this?
To practice theatre is to devote one's self to change and accept the fact that no idea will remain eternal. Theatre is a self-destructive art because it must constantly destroy itself of past conceptions in order to live, breathe, and retain the heart of what theatre itself is. I believe the wind mentioned is a wind of change. Theatre is always deconstructed but is rebuilt on a whim into something different, yet stills somehow the same. (Unrelated, but my verbose rambling in this portion is reminding me of the paradox of Lock's Socks, I believe it was called o...o)

10. According to Brook, what should be influencing theatre at all times?
According to Brook, life itself, the changing of times and the present day, should be influencing theatre at all times.

11. Please add two of your own questions for the rest of the chapter...
(I'm actually  unsure if I am meant to answer theses myself, but people are free to upload responses in the comments!)

What does it mean that "authors are failing to rise to the challenge of their times"?

A director is said to be "a strange role: he does not ask to be God and yet his role implies it". What is your interpretation of this statement and do you agree?