Theorising a Satisfying Theatre

The three plays that I have chosen for examples of this discussion have evoked very different responses from me. This is why I have opted to investigate further into the reasons why they elicit particular reactions and whether these experiences can be regarded as satisfying. I would like to make clear that my main focus is on theatre that is text-based. This is to eliminate any confusion with regards to alternative theatre that rely on other methods other than text to infer a story. This is a relevant differentiation as it would be all too easy to deviate into other realms of theatrical depiction rather than concentrating on the issue at hand. Robert epages talent! it seems! is his versatility. In The Anderson Project, he glides into each character effortlessly! dancing into total costume changes! wigs and even genders with surprising fluency. To describe his performance as energetic! even "ovial! then one must observe his writing and direction as subtle and sophisticated! but in a dynamic sort of way. #is humour never seems to overflow! sprinkled with subtle ironies and sprightly wit. #is understanding of his characters is "ust as delicate! never veering on the sentimental or melodramatic! but in contrast to the lively humour! a stark indifference that leaves neither sympathy nor "udgement on its hapless sub"ects! casting a poignant mist amongst the audience. The melding of ancient symbolism! props and mime gave me the impression that I was watching a puppet show. $uxtaposed with the stark naturalism of the characters mundane lives and the original use of mixed media and stage design! provided the play with an invigorating contemporary feel. %ombined! The Andersen Project simply overwhelmed me with its refreshing approach to theatre.

&avid #arrowers 'lackbird is conventional theatre in many ways. The structure of the script is linear! the vivid dialogue conscious and self-explanatory( the performances are concise in its delivery( the direction taut and lean. )ll of which delivers clearly an engaging! yet controversial story. It is here that the play attempts to provoke and stimulate us into debate! grappling with themes such as paedophilia! desire and love. *hat I find interesting about this play is its ability to engage the viewer in a state of suspense! whilst at the same time conducting a difficult discussion upon a taboo that is not spoken about! swept under the carpet without investigation. )lthough the sub"ect matter was complex! the issues raised were intelligible! inviting debate! allowing enough ambiguity for the audience to make up their own minds on how they felt. )lthough it probably wasnt as raw and visceral as other provocative plays! what it does do is clearly sets the boundaries for discussion! then encourages the audience to +uestion then venture beyond them. This in itself may be deemed conventional! but it does the "ob of maintaining the viewers attention! whilst presenting challenging sub"ects that are left open to discussion. ,y first real experience into an unorthodox take on theatre was when I witnessed a production of -arah .anes Cleansed. /rior to this! I had practically no knowledge of her work so did not know what to expect. )fter reading a selection of reviews and interviews! it seemed to me that the intention of Cleansed was to emotionalise and sensationalise a form of obsessive love. Intriguing and audacious as this sounds! without prior knowledge and e+uipped with 01 rather ignorant years of life experience! I was unable to engage rationally or empathise with .anes physical and textual metaphors. Throughout! it was difficult! at times! grotes+ue viewing. The problem was not in the direction! performance or the poetry-laden structure of the piece! all of which seemed to elaborate the despair 23hope45 of obsessive love! but came from the source itself. 6ow this isnt to say that it did not arouse emotions and provoke an intellectual investigation into the ideas of emotional dependence! suffering and redemption! to list but a few of the points raised. *hat was challenging was deciphering this dense material and trying to rationalise then conceptualise this plethora of raw emotion! after which asking! unflinchingly! to see through ob"ective eyes! the world in such an idealistically despairing

way. This is something I simply could not agree with. *e are presented with the facts every day. /eople generally try to navigate around the harsh realities of the world we live! either through ignorance! escapism or some other evasive method. This isnt to say that people arent aware of particular horrors! at the very least! aware of the like existing. It is simply a mechanism employed to continue with life! regardless of how depressing it may seem - a basic defence mechanism. If we were all to perceive the world in such a heightened sense of grim! perhaps we too would opt for the easy way out. -o to be expected to not only part with hard earned cash and even harder obtained time to invest in such a starkly dissolute! emotionally narcissistic piece is expecting a huge amount from an individual who would have rather preferred to see Sunday in the Park with George. #ere! I am fully aware that I am open to a barrage of attacks! perhaps even to profligate a sense of mass resignation! but let me at least say this7 it is easier to be seduced into a way of thinking rather than being tormented by it. )nd this simply boils down to what an individual is most likely to react to. &id I personally find this satisfying4 Ideologically! intellectually! morally! emotionally or philosophically4 6o. The problem with intellectualising theatre! or any creative art! is that there is always the possibility of alienating the audience. 6arrative structures are there to facilitate the audience in digesting the text. /laying with these conventions and being creative with formulating and constructing new ideas is a necessary evolutionary process! to maintain fresh interest! but this isnt to say that the links and structures have to be eradicated before it can be regarded! then appropriately categorised as being artistic. /erhaps there is general ignorance around audiences who find these intellectually abstract textual forms unintelligible! but then perhaps in this deliberate attempt to break free from these apparent restrictions! these authors have accomplished the very thing that they had set out to achieve 8 to segregate themselves from the masses so that they can hold the glory of being thought of as a true individual. The idea of entertaining is problematic! as this doesnt necessarily entail a satisfying experience. It might engage the viewer in an almost crude and perfunctory way! though inherently lacking a higher!

even wholesome effect. This isnt to say that one form is more satisfying than the other! far from it. In fact! this is merely a differentiation of one kind of satisfaction from another. 9n one side there is routine-based! commonly recognisable and conventional satisfaction! one the audience is familiar with and able to dissect and comprehend with minimal effort i.e. entertainment. :riedrich 6iet;sche draws on <reek tragedy to describe the collective dynamic of a cultural and socially cathartic process! which he likens to a &ionysian trance. 9n the other side there is a more intellectual! unconventional provocation that seeks to dislodge the audiences understanding! forcing them to work hard to comprehend its narrative. #ere 'arker is perhaps a little to hasty to deride other theatres that adopt a more conventional practice. #e is simply stating the obvious! or at the very least! trying desperately to distance himself as far away from it as possible 2as any self-confessed artist would5. #e does make valid points! but this does not sufficiently mask the intellectual elitism that he so readily scampers to. It is almost innate for a person to try to establish meaning. *hat this actually constitutes is infinite in its form. /erhaps this need stems from the fact that the universe is vast and chaotic! making predictability and control valuable! if rare! commodities. The ability to be able to grasp meaning and understanding gives an audience this power thus compensating for the lack in their own lives. This isnt to say that this is the only satisfying aspect of theatre! but it is not too incomprehensible to suggest that it counts for a substantial part of the en"oyment. This is especially the case with regards to those authors who adhere to the school of originality! provocation and intellectual sophistry! as their "oy comes from the knowledge that they are somewhat intelligent and prodigious in their art form! having "oined the higher echelons of the cultural! social and intellectual elite! whilst their faithful! though occasionally! non the wiser audience come out of the theatre feeling like they have attained the newest alternative perspective of the environment they live in! like some passing philosophical fad. -o here lies the point. *hat one deems satisfying is more than likely to differ from the next person. 6ow this may seem like stating

the obvious! but if that were the case! there wouldnt be such a wellstocked theatre criticism section at *aterstones= There are those that will condemn conventional! sensationalised and ultimately satisfying theatre as nothing more than candy-floss! created to maintain a kind of )utomaton mindset rather than being roused or provoked into action. ,y only en+uiry into to this fairly sympathetic point would be to ask whether the masses actually want this particular kind of theatre! as it is only a particular sort that en"oy the continuous prodding of the poker of reality! like some masochistic sport. 9n the one hand it can be said that the masses dont know what they want! that they will simply feed on what ever mass produced drivel critics and the mass media presents them with! due to their lack of independent thought. 9n the other hand! it can also be said that audiences do actually know what they want! otherwise they wouldnt pay for it in the first place. %ommercially orientated producers produce hits according to what they have researched into what audiences generally buy into. -o the +uestion of what audiences actually want to see is an increasingly difficult one to solve! especially in one swift! conclusive swoop! as this is a constantly evolving dilemma. There are those who want to be startled! shocked! provoked! educated! liberated! vindicated! etc. There are those who dont want any of that. They want to escape from this moral and amoral dichotomy! they dont want to face the harsh realities of the world they live in! they want to renounce their suffocating responsibilities at least for a few hours=)nd who is anyone to judge otherwise4 -o here we skirt around the begrudgingly and perhaps! unsatisfactory! conclusion that there may not actually be such a thing as a definably satisfying theatrical experience. )t this point! I am inevitably faced with the +uestion as of what I personally believe to be satisfactory. If one was to ask for my own sub"ective view on this issue! Id be left with the only intelligibly viable choice by replying that it would depend entirely on what mood Im in. /erhaps I can be accused of being nihilistic! but then what is 6ihilism4 *hat is defined as meaningful and disregarded as meaningless4 *hose standards are we measuring by4 This! paradoxically! leads back to 'arkers view on what he defines as a

satisfying theatre in the sense that it is an experience that does not attempt to reduce a narrative to its bare points for the sake of the audiences comprehension! but strives to make it more provocative and problematic! forcing the audience to work and unravel! sparking off a mode of continuous sub"ective in+uisition. )s 'arker states It is without a essage!"ut not without eaning. It is the audience who constructs the eaning. The audience e#$eriences the $lay individually and not collectively. It is led, %ut akes its own way through a $lay whose e&&ects are cu ulative. The restoration o& dignity to the audience %egins when the te#t and $roduction acce$t a %iguity. I& it is $re$ared, the audience will not struggle &or $er anent coherence, which is associated with the narrative o& naturalis , %ut e#$erience the $lay o ent %y o ent, truth %y truth, contradiction %y contradiction. The %reaking o& &alse dra atic disci$lines &rees $eo$le into i agination '"arker, ())*+,*-. -o here! perhaps! lies my conclusion! even though it may not be deemed as an entirely satisfactory one.

References
'arker! #. 2>??@5 Arguments for a Theatre ,anchester7 ,anchester Aniversity /ress