Going to see theatre

IÂ’ve just read all the threads to this argument with keen interest, and am going to respond to many previous points in this one reply.


I think part of this debate is semantics. Some say, “going to the theatre WILL make a better actor”. Others say, “not necessarily”, and that, “observing LIFE”, is equally or more valuable.

OBSERVING is an important word here. You can go to see theatre, and still NOT observe. In fact, often thatÂ’s the desired outcome of some artformsÂ…you go to see the film or play to get lost in the story and characters, not to really think about why or how it was achieved.
You can also live LIFE without observing it. But just being out there is NOT enough to make you a good actor.
And even just observing is not enough.

One of Sol’s posts said, “Theatre is all about interpreting life. This can be observed anywhere at any time, and is the best way to keep your craft fresh and original.”
But life, as you encounter it on the street, isn’t necessarily theatre. What is it that you are learning out there that is automatically improving your “craft”?

The craft itself is something quite separate from life; it is intelligent OBSERVATION, INTERPRETATION of that observation, and then the REALISATION of that interpretation in your art.

The point of going to theatre (if your purpose is to learn) is to witness these three elements; form your own opinion of how effectively they have been demonstrated; and use this information, in the light of your own response, to improve your own process (of observation, interpretation and realization).

If we understand this as being the process involved, and not just “going to see” theatre, then it becomes harder to agree with the ones who claim that observing theatre “is not a necessary part of improving your craft”. (That’s not to say that it’s an easy task, and obviously some learn better than others.)
Whether you are WATCHING someone “partake in/excel at/screw up” a performance or actually doing that YOURSELF is not the point: both are valid and necessary opportunities to learn. But no learning can be demonstrated without going through this three part process.



Another part of the problem in this debate is: How do we define THEATRE? As soon as there’s a performer/audience relationship, you could say we have theatre to be observed. It’s inside. It’s outside. So both the “stage” and the “life” arguments become less relevant. But the “observing” argument wins hands down. Yes, you CAN learn how to be an entertainer by playing with your nephew, or being the “class clown”. But in my opinion, that is still “going to the theatre”. You are observing things like character, timing, delivery, inflection, body language…etc etc…and gauging it by audience reaction.



There also seems to be some debate about the merits/evils of IMITATION. Imitating what you observe is one part of being an actor. But donÂ’t confuse this with replicating a performance or mimicking an actor (i.e. in his flawed Morgan Freeman argument, Glynn has repeatedly confused the word INSPIRATION with IMITATION). Why is it assumed that imitation is automatically a good OR a bad thing? And why even assume that imitation is what you learn from watching others?

The argument has gone along the lines of ,“watching theatre will make you imitate stuff you see and that’s bad”. Taking inspiration from other works, learning from other performers, is NOT the same as copying them or rehashing their ideas, nor does it necessarily lead down that path. Can you not be inspired (I know I have, and learned much in the process) by a truly hideous performance? It’s always easier to be a critic, and so some of my theatrical observations have inspired me to try for the exact OPPOSITE of what I saw! Or what about when observations I have made have helped me to recognize errors I was making or could have made; and so my craft was able to improve although the context was entirely unrelated to the performance I witnessed?
Great breakthroughs in any field of endeavor are never made in isolation…to be bold/new/original you at least need to be aware of what has gone before, what is contemporary – otherwise you risk reinventing the wheel. Isn’t this an important thing that can only be learned by observing others?

And the flip side is: sometimes a performance is great WITHOUT noticeably being original or different. WhatÂ’s wrong with that?

If the only way to test this debate was to manufacture two identical actors, and let one observe and study a multitude of performances, while the other learns acting in an environment void of performance, which one do you think would be likely to win an Oscar? (Okay, winning an Oscar might not be an accurate measure of success, but the point is still valid).


Amanda’s original question was, “should young actors go to theatre to help them learn? Does attending theatre make a better actor? “

What if you took out the word “actor” and put in “doctor”? How does a doctor learn stuff without observing others in the craft? Sure, they can learn a lot from books, or trial and error (!) and they can take classes where they might be TOLD how to operate…but it eventually comes down to keen observation, some interpretation (diagnosis) and realization (under the knife). True, WHERE this observation comes from doesn’t matter…so maybe it CAN be learned from life experience (if the doctor happens to have a heart attack, or witnesses one, that must be a good thing?) …but I’m sure you’d rather have your open heart surgery operated by a doctor who has observed another in performance.



The only other thing I want to take issue with is Sol’s comment, “…nothing more than a parody, and the performers being nothing more than parrots.”

As a major player with Barking Gecko for 13 years, I must ask you if possible to please not put down the powerful performance potential of portraying a parrot..!




Unfortunately, as it so happens, I donÂ’t actually go to the theatre that often, either.

The reason? No money.

The reason for that? I work in theatre!



Cheers,
Craig