The Imprecision of Talking about Theatrical Moments
Between the comments I got yesterday and the live comments I received during conversations with various members of the cast of Arthur: The Hunt, it became swiftly apparent that a discussion of what makes up a theatrical moment is an exercise in imprecision. It's obvious that multiple factors come into play as a moment unfolds between actors and audience. It's also obvious that those taking part in the discussion bring their own favorite answers, championing those elements of theatre that have impacted them.
"Emotional honesty." "Intellectual content." "Senseless commitment to telling the story." "The notion of function, as in the design maxim "form follows function." In the comments to yesterday's post, one person lamented that he'd seen as many great moments of theatre in acting classes as he had in performances, if not more. I can say the same. Why? Another notes that the audience may not be ready to receive the poetic moment--they are looking wrong. I get that, too. Another commenter chalks it up to training, so that the making of the moment is like the automatic process of driving a car (after you've been at it awhile.) Here, here. And finally, one suggests that it's a gift...that some folks are just born with the ability to move people in performance. We've all seen such gifting at work, wondering why them--why aren't we on the receiving end of brilliance.
Then I watched Arthur: The Hunt again last night, watching for something other than my play. What is going on up there? The subtle shifts of emotion, the rise and fall of words, the touches, the launching of action (and its sometimes too-soon abandonment), the spontaneous, irresistable laugh of the audience, the soft snoring of the woman a couple of rows behind me. As with all plays, there are moments that are working quite well, and these make me very happy. Then there are moments--again, as with all plays--that are not working as well, and these I tend to ignore, and if I can't, I silently grouse and protest to myself..."no, not that way, this way".
So let's take another whack at the same question I asked yesterday. What are questions that must be asked (and answered) in the creation of a theatre's aesthetic? Frankly, it's way too early to start the answering. First we have to get the questions.
For example, how's this:
How will we recognize "truth" on the stage when we see it?
How will we describe such a moment?
What are the necessary elements that must be present for "truth" in theatre to be revealed?
Given the implied difficulty of such a task, is it even relevant to use the term "truth" as it relates to theatre?
If it is relevant, where is "truth" most likely to reside? In the playwright's words? In the actor's delivery? In the arrangement of bodies in space?
Does "truth" always mean realism?
...that's one category...what are your questions?
12:20:11 PM
