Going to see theatre
Mon, 27 Aug 2001, 09:37 amAmanda21 posts in thread
Going to see theatre
Mon, 27 Aug 2001, 09:37 amjust somethings i thought of last night:
personally - i do not go to the theatre often. i can't drive myself around and i don't have any money. :-o
is it as important that actors go to see theatre as well as act in theatre(or whatever they want to act in)?
what are everyone elses views on this matter?
i act, sing, dance, play 2 instuments and am involved with a couple of theatre companys as well as help run one.
as a part of learning about the performing arts - should young actors go to theatre to help them learn? does attending theatre make a better actor?
i would love to hear other thoughts!
xxAmanda
personally - i do not go to the theatre often. i can't drive myself around and i don't have any money. :-o
is it as important that actors go to see theatre as well as act in theatre(or whatever they want to act in)?
what are everyone elses views on this matter?
i act, sing, dance, play 2 instuments and am involved with a couple of theatre companys as well as help run one.
as a part of learning about the performing arts - should young actors go to theatre to help them learn? does attending theatre make a better actor?
i would love to hear other thoughts!
xxAmanda
RE: Going to see theatre
Wed, 29 Aug 2001, 01:54 pmWalter Plinge
Hey Amanda,
Entering this debate in the latter stages I unfortunately run the risk of rehashing things which have already been said. But i think it is an extremely interesting question and besides a bit of rehashing here and there has never hurt anyone. Could I support those who have already suggested a synthesis of the two basic arguments.
Art is inevitably fueled by actual life experiences, but presenting these experiences using the medium of theatre in a way that evokes a response is indeed an artform. Moreover it is one that is learnt and can only be learnt by watching others partake in/excel at/screw up.
I think a talented actor/director or whatever, is one who can not only interpret what they see around them, but more importantly, communicate their interpretation to others. If you lack the means and the tools to express how you feel, in the context of theatre, the experiences are of little use.
When asked which film school he had attended, Quentin Tarantino replied "I didn't. I just watched films."
Entering this debate in the latter stages I unfortunately run the risk of rehashing things which have already been said. But i think it is an extremely interesting question and besides a bit of rehashing here and there has never hurt anyone. Could I support those who have already suggested a synthesis of the two basic arguments.
Art is inevitably fueled by actual life experiences, but presenting these experiences using the medium of theatre in a way that evokes a response is indeed an artform. Moreover it is one that is learnt and can only be learnt by watching others partake in/excel at/screw up.
I think a talented actor/director or whatever, is one who can not only interpret what they see around them, but more importantly, communicate their interpretation to others. If you lack the means and the tools to express how you feel, in the context of theatre, the experiences are of little use.
When asked which film school he had attended, Quentin Tarantino replied "I didn't. I just watched films."
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···