I've been pretty regularly involved in the community theater scene for several years now - primarily in
Magna's theater scene - but I haven't been able to attend as many professional quality shows as I'd like. It was a real treat, then, to attend a production of
Laughing Stock put on by the Pioneer Theater Company. I loved the show - and, interestingly enough, I don't think I would have enjoyed the show half as much as I did if I weren't so involved in theater on my own.
First, let me just say that I've always loved going to the Pioneer Theater Company, and wish I had the $$$ to make it a regular event. Back when I was in junior high (
a remarkable phase of life, to be sure), I was part of a program that organized field trips to every one of the PTC's productions, meaning I got to see top-notch theatrical entertainment about once every other month. I think the PTC was where I first saw Arthur Miller's
The Crucible, which I've always loved
because of despite how depressing it is.
If you've never seen
Laughing Stock, the plot focuses on a small theater company which performs in a renovated barn. You get to see nearly every aspect of putting on a show in a small theater - fundraising, auditions, rehearsals, productions, and all the backstage antics of actors between scenes. As someone who's DONE some theater, I related to a lot of what I saw.
Strangely enough, one of the scenes that resonated most with me was a tiny, almost incidental moment during the second act. We're backstage during a performance of
Hamlet and have just watched a stage hand misplace the prop to be used as the skull of Yorick (a gag I simply CAN'T spoil). Distraught, the stage hand draws a skull face on a cantaloupe to substitute in. Thankfully, they find the real prop just in time, but the cantaloupe remains on stage. During one of the many emotionally stirring monologues, which we actually get to see thanks to a clever lighting effect, one of the actors grabs the cantaloupe, looks at it, laughs, and then shows it wordlessly to another actor who also smiles. It's a completely unessential moment that says so much about the small theater experience.
I found one aspect of the show troubling, and it's something to do with the story itself, not the production, which was above reproach as far as I can tell. See, this was a play ABOUT putting on a play, and as delightful as it was to watch
Laughing Stock, I worry that it's really only enjoyable to others who have PUT ON plays. I'm sure most theater-goers can relate to a lot of the events portrayed in the show, but to REALLY UNDERSTAND
TM the whole experience, they have to be actors themselves.
I sometimes worry that self-referential art movements limit the number of people that can get involved. It bothers me mainly because I'm one who feels art is really for the masses, and not for the elite initiated few. I may be off base here (and I likely am), but I see the tendency towards self-reference primarily in those art forms that have lost touch with the populace at large.
It's especially evident in poetry. I find a lot of poetry written about poetry, which is cool and all - if you're a poet. Otherwise, it just comes across as smarmy self-congratulations. Poets like to think poetry is all that and a bag of Lay's Baked Potato Chips, but the rest of the world thinks it's ludicrous.
I think it's really easy for artists to talk about how great their art is - heck,
I do it all the time. After that, it's only understandable that they would want to create art ABOUT that art. Really, though, it seems to me that the artist's challenge is to make their art relevant to people who don't care about the artistic process at all.
Not an earth-shattering revelation, I'm sure, but it's something to think about.
