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
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.
5 comments:
Well said. I've often had a hard time with songs or musical about musicians. (glares at Glee.) It seems really hard to demonstrate how art feels to an artist.
I also caught Laughing Stock--a season subscription to matinee balcony seats. I loved how they depicted the backstage antics, and a little of each aspect of the theater. I haven't really performed since High School, and at the end the actors seemed a little brainwashed into coming back year after year.
My favorite line was definitely "If you believe in vampires, clap your hands!" We all applauded, partly because it was a hilarious moment, and partly because we wanted to be part of the joke.
I agree with you, but I also don't. I've never seen Laughing Stock, but I've directed Noises Off twice and it is also a play about a group of actors putting on a play (a touring production, no less) and all the antics and pitfalls that occur along the way. Even to theater newbies it is hilarious. Granted, those who have been in a show or twenty find even more hilarity because chances are they've been in similar situations themselves and found similarly hysterical/desperate solutions.
I can watch a play about something and find it funny, or emotional, or heartbreaking, or dramatic and important, without knowing anything else about the topic at hand. I saw Fences and Memphis and Cat On A Hot Tin Roof (with an all black cast) and loved what they had to say about race, even though race has never been a barrier I've had to deal with. I saw Billy Elliot and felt shock and hurt and disbelief and "Billy! Dance! Go!" even though I've never been a dancer and I've never had a strict miner father. I saw Red and fell in love with how the Rothko character describes art, even though I am not an art expert and have never painted a canvas.
I think the whole point of theater is to show us--in a way a movie can only hope to achieve--that the human experience is transcendent and we all can partake of it's many facets, we can feel and experience things we've never felt or experienced before through a play.
Sorry to hijack your comments, didn't realize I had so many opinions on the matter.
*shutting up now
xox
@Juan-Carlos: "I haven't had a date in years... and neither has she!"
@heidikins: Laughing Stock made me think a lot about Noises Off, actually. I think JC hits the nail on the head, though, when he says that the actors in Laughing Stock seem a little brainwashed. That's probably one of the main points that bothered me. Laughing Stock feels more like a justification of theater at times than a celebration of it.
I'm another person who thinks that non-theater people can still enjoy a play or movie about the theater experience. My favorite example is Waiting for Guffman. None of my brothers are in theater, but they quote it all the time and were shocked when they learned I hadn't seen it (they rectified that situation immediately). My mom's only backstage background is what I tell her, but even she can't stand how unrealistic Glee is, 'cause she's seen how hard I work.
In addition, a lot of my friends like those kinds of plays and movies BECAUSE they've never considered what it's like backstage, and they like that window. Isn't one of the points of "art" to open people's minds and help them see different points of view and possibilities (and also entertain, in the case of the play)?
It's sad that the Laughing Stock script wasn't more accessible to outsiders... but I bet the cast is having a much better time backstage than we expect ;)
I took my middle school 8th graders to Laughing Stock. We have a thing with PTC. I have some experience in theater and I understood what they were going for, but something was lacking. The only part I was into 100% was the performance of Dracula. I wasn't as attached to the rest. And my students seemed to agree. I think the play within a play thing could work, but something just didn't completely pull me in.
Post a Comment