Howard Barker & Theatre of Catastrophe

July 5, 2013 Alex Matsuo

A truly fascinating and yet terrifying playwright I’ve come across is British playwright, Howard Barker.

Granted, he’s not Sarah Kane-scary, but his work is disturbing. Barker created the genre of “Theatre of Catastrophe” to describe his work, because no other genre described his style the way he wanted it. In the 1980’s, Barker coined the term, “Humanist Theatre” to describe the traditional style of British theatre that he so detested. Theatre of Catastrophe was the response to Humanist Theatre. Barker wanted to create something that would wake up the audiences of theatre today. And while his main arguments are against British theatre, his thoughts can be applied to the American theatre as well.

To sum up Theatre of Catastrophe in a few sentences; instead of evoking one collective response from the audience, he challenges the audience member to deal with the play on their own terms and their own interpretation. This means that instead of a play having a clear, single and direct theme, Barker’s plays are much more fragment and ambiguous so that the personal interpretation can be achieved. In interviews, he uses the example of Brecht, stating that when he goes to the theatre, he doesn’t want to be “instructed by Brecht.” Barker’s work contains the themes of sexuality, desire, ecstasy, individual will, criminality, performance, and death. He doesn’t hold back in the way it is presented (example; dropping a bucket of horse blood on the actors). He often writes about some of the most grim historical events and shows them in a manner that is open and yet, provocative.

Barker is one who wants to go against the mainstream form of theatre. I’m currently reading Barker’s Arguments for a Theatre, and I will admit that it is exhausting, even after being a little more than halfway finished. Not exhausting as in the dialogue is dry or difficult, but coming to grasp this term and considering it as the wake up that mainstream theatre seems to need right now. Theatre of Catastrophe, if I’m reading and interpreting this correctly, is meant to change what we know as theatre with explosive dialogue, provocative staging, and gory stories. Ironically, I couldn’t find a uniformed definition or interpretation of Theatre of Catastrophe, and when I compared Barker’s definition from the 80’s to now, it has evolved and changed and become more extreme over the decades. I truly had to keep track of my timeline as I began researching Barker and his theories.

Britain clearly has some disinterest in his work, while theaters in Paris can’t produce enough of his work, according to an interview with Kevin Quarmby. I suppose it is more of a cultural deal. But my initial thoughts are I somewhat feel that Barker is doing the one thing that he detests, and that is instructing the audience. Even if his work is obscure and in fragments that are open to interpretation, he has to have some sort of thought or intent behind it for the audience. There is still a theme to take away from his plays.

Although, I have not seen any of Barker’s work on stage, I’ve only read it. I can say that his work is definitely meant to be seen and not read. I can appreciate and applaud his work and respecting the idea that we all interpret work differently and that one cannot put the audience into one little box when it comes to the reception of work. Others seem to not feel the same, such as Michael Bettencourt, who very much eloquently and strongly expresses his feelings on Barker.

Howard Barker is an interesting individual and deserves some attention from those who are interested. So in closing, if there’s a Barker play opening on a stage near me, I’ll buy my ticket, but I will go in very prepared and of course, with an open mind.

Why Theatre Is Important

February 23, 2013 Alex Matsuo

Theatre has been around for centuries; from the beginning of theatre through oral tradition, to ancient Greek theatre to the contemporary theatre that we know today. Theatre is an intricate part of human history. Theatre is important because it has the ability to show the best and the worst sides of human nature. It has the ability to purge our emotions, making it an experience that cleanses the human soul. Even before humans had the ability to read and write, stories were passed down through oral storytelling and giving a visual imagery to people and bringing memories to a persons mind. Today, in modern society, theatre has been embellished and more than ever, people are going to the theatre to watch stories come alive on stage and learn new life long lessons about love, friendship, betrayal, trust and forgiveness.

Theatre mirrors the past, present and future of our society. People connect with history through the stage and can create a more effective emotional connection to our roots. Theatre is important to me because it gives me the opportunity, as the actor, to step into another person’s life and feel their emotions and go through their journeys as a human being. Theatre, in my life, is giving a gift to the performers, to the audience members, and anyone else who is a part of the project. It is important to every person in all walks of life because we learn of each other, ourselves, trials and tribulations, and to perhaps, find a way to resolve our conflicts between ourselves and other people. We learn more about ourselves and the people around, and perhaps, theatre will give us a venue and medium in which we can come to mutual understandings, or create havoc and chaos from all the different people in the room. But that is up to us to decide.

Superhero

February 6, 2013 Alex Matsuo

I started a new residency this week at a new school. To sum up the gist of my job, I basically show Kindergarten-5th grade teachers how to integrate the arts into their curriculums. There’s a lot more to it, but for sake of not boring anyone, I’ll leave it at that. I love my job, it can be exhausting at times, but I get to work in something theatre-related and teach the next generation of students. I have a tendency to get attached to my students. What can I say? I’m a sucker for hugs, high-fives, handshakes, and toothless smiles. I love seeing this kids grow from being shy children to completely letting go on stage and becoming a character. I especially love training teachers and seeing them grow and develop and become phenomenal artists, whether they realize it or not.

Anyway, today I had a student whose a four-limb amputee (for the sake of the internet, his name is going to be omitted). I’ve worked with kids with special needs on a regular basis, even working with children with autism and having them perform Shakespeare and Moliere on stage. These kids I especially have a soft spot for because they are the most creative artists and they surprise me so much with the things they come up. And not to mention how genuinely happy they are to be a part of a group and feel included by their peers. While it’s trying, it’s very special and I consider it a privilege and an honor. I end up learning a lot each time. I learn about myself and what it is to be human.

My student whose a four leg amputee really excelled in theatre today. We worked with mirror activities and I taught them how to warm up and this student truly led by example. Even though he was missing his limbs, the movements he created were amazing. I would have thought he was a modern dancer. The way he expressed himself and took the plunge into all the activities was astounding.

Before we got into the activities, I was talking to the kids about imagination and how actors can be whatever they want to be. They use their imaginations to become characters and be able to do things they usually can’t do in reality, or so they think.

The student asked with wide eyes and a smile, “Can I even be a superhero?”

Yes, student…while you may not know it yet, you are already a superhero.

Calphurnia and Portia: Rome’s Unwanted Women

January 21, 2013 Alex Matsuo

Okay, back to business. No more paranormal for a while and back to research!

Julius Caesar is a play that is suspended between the realms of history and tragedy. The play is male–dominated, with only two women roles: Calphurnia, Caesar’s wife, and Portia, Brutus’ wife. The lack of female presence is noticed in comparison to other Shakespeare plays where female roles are favorable, such as Twelfth Night, As You Like It, and The Merry Wives of Windsor. David Mann discusses in Shakespeare’s Women, “Why should one play, say As You Like It, seem so sensitive to the minutiae of a woman’s feelings, and yet another, say Julius Caesar, be so cursory in its treatment? The answer surely is that it depends entirely on the focus of the play, which, with the exception of a small group of romantic comedies, is generally on the male characters, and always reflects the male point of view” (Mann 23). Shakespeare created the absence of a strong female role in order to prove the tragic flaw of an ambitious, male dominated world in terms of Julius Caesar.

It is important to analyze the actions and choices that are made by these men in their world. Gail Kern Paster elaborates in the essay, “In the Spirit of Men There Is No Blood: Blood as Trope of Gender in Julius Caesar,” “The conspirators can only remake themselves, it would seem, by regendering Caesar; they can throw off the appearance of womanishness by displacing their own sense of gender-indeterminacy onto the body of their adversary and renegotiating the differences between themselves and Caesar in diacritical terms of the bodily canons” (290). This quote touches on a common insecurity among the men of the Senate. They are envious and fearful of Caesar’s growing power. In relation to the weak female roles of the play, the men themselves do not want to appear weak and feminine because then they will be overpowered. There is also the fear of being overruled by emotions and not being able to think rationally because of these emotions. As Cassius states:

Let it be who it is: for Romans now
Have thews and limbs like to their ancestors;
But, woe the while! our fathers’ minds are dead,
And we are govern’d with our mothers‘ spirits;
Our yoke and sufferance show us womanish. –I, ii, 79-83. Emphasis Added.

This is also proven when Caesar is being attacked over his inability to impregnate Calphurnia and even requests Antony to brush by her to make her more fertile, “Forget not, in your speed, Antonius, /To touch Calphurnia; for our elders say, /The barren, touched in this holy chase, /Shake off their sterile curse. (I, ii, 10-13). Paster also explains an interesting point that the more Caesar grows, the conspirators (or the Senate) shrink. They must assassinate Caesar in order to secure their own masculinity.

When analyzing Caesar and Brutus and their own personal downfalls, one must look at their wives and their relationships with them. These two ladies serve as a point of reasons and foundations for their husbands even though their warnings are not heeded. Also, this play conveys an interesting point of view into a world without a female presence. Or to be put more plainly, a civilization without women. In this play, it seems that the two marriages are related into more of a partnership, as shown in the strength of these two women. Calphurnia is so alarmed by her dream that she strongly urges Caesar to stay at home. She is outspoken and clearly has a personality and self-made identity. She warns Caesar and tells him to not go to the Senate. Her statement, “You shall not stir out of your house today” (II, ii, 13) is written as a direct order and not a request. Instead, Caesar listens to Decius’ alternate interpretation of her dream, which leads to his downfall. Juliet Dusinberre elaborates in her book, Shakespeare and the Nature of Women, “Shakespeare’s women dream and see visions in vain, surviving to suffer the devastation they predict. Decius interprets Calphurnia’s dream to flatter Caesar, and sketches the scorn which would attend his hearkening to his wife’s fears…” (Dusinberre 281).

To Caesar, he doesn’t heed Calphurnia’s warnings and nightmares because they are subjective. Based on her womanly role and femininity, she is working primarily from emotions. Instead, he believes in Decius’ interpretation and chooses to not lie to the Senate or the people regarding the condition of his health. He is murdered due to this choice. But another reason why Caesar considers Decius’ interpretation of the dream is because it flatters his own personal confidence. If he [Caesar] followed Calphurnia’s orders and lied to the Senate and stayed home, Caesar would have seen this as him not following through with his appointed role. Decius’ interpretation was not only more persuasive, but also encouraged Caesar to continue to the Senate and walk into his own death sentence.

Similar to Calphurnia, Portia is determined to make sure her voice is heard and understood. Portia goes a step further as she expects Brutus to be completely honest with her. She desires a partnership with her husband and wants to be involved in his life. Not only do these two share a partnership, but also Portia considers herself to be an extension of Brutus himself. But he ignores her at first, thinking that she could not handle the real truth of his life and work. But Portia is extremely intelligent and has the ability to use language to aid her to get what she desires:

BRUTUS: You are my true and honourable wife,
As dear to me as are the ruddy drops
That visit my sad heart

PORTIA: If this were true, then should I know this secret.
I grant I am a woman; but withal
A woman that Lord Brutus took to wife:
I grant I am a woman; but withal
A woman well-reputed, Cato’s daughter.
Think you I am no stronger than my sex,
Being so father’d and so husbanded?
Tell me your counsels, I will not disclose ’em:
I have made strong proof of my constancy,
Giving myself a voluntary wound
Here, in the thigh: can I bear that with patience.
And not my husband’s secrets? – II, i, 287-301

Portia challenges Brutus’ love for her. If Brutus sees Portia as a comfort from his troubles, then he should be able to tell her of the conspiracy. But he doesn’t and Portia uses logic and reason to explain her position as the wife of Brutus. Portia’s voluntary wound is a representation of her strength and endurance as a woman in a man’s world. Paster explains the voluntary wound as, “Portia calls attention to this bodily site not to remind Brutus of her femaleness, her lack of the phallus, but rather to offer the wound as substitute phallus” (294). She purposely inflicted pain and injury onto herself in order to prove a physical strength that was masculine and the physical cut would serve as that proof, just as a male sexual part is proof of “manliness”. She considers herself to be nearly like a man from her strong father who raised her, to Brutus, her husband.

Portia intentionally wounds herself to prove that she is just as strong as a man. Paster discusses that, “Later in the same scene, Portia’s self-wounding and voluntary self-display corroborate the same significance of bodily intactness as an ideological format of gender. Portia stakes her claim to knowledge of the conspiracy by seeking to efface the physical difference that separates her from her husband, difference that Brutus himself is intent upon marking” (292). This means that Portia’s desire to know about the conspiracy is so strong, that she intentionally wounded herself to rid herself of any signs of being a woman. She is attempting to mutilate herself in order to be physically just like a man.

The actual action of this self-wound is significant because she is attempting to prove a point to her husband. Paster goes on to explain that, “But Portia, unable by talking to prove her ability to keep still, turns to self-mutilation. The gesture seems intended to imitate in little the suicides that Roman patriarchy valorized as the supreme expression of personal autonomy” (293). But Portia desires more than just to know about the conspiracy, she desires an equal partnership with her husband. If she can prove that she can physically handle pain and to literally carve herself into a man, it will grant her that partnership. Unfortunately, only so much can be done physically when her emotional state does not change genders.

Her emotional and mental state remains feminine. Similarly, Brutus himself demonstrates a flawed understanding of human emotion. Honor Matthews explains in Character and Symbol in Shakespeare’s Plays, “Both before and after the assassination he suffers sleeplessness typical of a troubled conscience […] Nevertheless, he strives to be honest with himself and others; he is idealistic, a loving husband an adored master. Indeed Brutus’ true ‘sin’ is never wrongful self-assertion.” (Matthews 43). This statement is interesting because it puts Brutus in more of a heroic position rather than a troubled conspirator who doesn’t know how to handle loss or failure. This is supported by Antony’s speech in the end of the play where he regards Brutus as the only assassin who killed Caesar with Rome’s best interest at hear, “ This was the noblest Roman of them all;/ All the conspirators save only he/Did that they did in envy of great Caesar…” (V, v, 76-78).

There is an interesting point to consider in the scene where Brutus finds out about the suicide of his wife. The news is delivered twice and both times Brutus is emotionally distant and unattached to the event. And Cassius is more affected by Portia’s death than Brutus himself. Portia’s suicide, however, is not a sign of weakness. David Mann explains that, “The values of the Roman matron are held up for admiration in many of the plays and are closely related to the willingness of such to commit suicide to maintain their reputations” (Mann 138). This is supported by Brutus’s suicide after he has begun to lose the war. Could this mean that Portia ultimately failed in attempting to be her husband’s partner and equal? But the absence of Portia supplements a catalyst for his spiraling downfall into his own death.

Thomas Clayton explains in his text, Should Brutus Never Taste of Portia’s Death but Once, “The latter part of the play shows him characteristically and nobly enduring the consequences of his earlier folly even as he compounds it” (Clayton 244). Brutus’ slow deterioration is due to his actions. His initial motivation for taking part in the assassination of Caesar involved a patriotic act but soon realized the consequences both mentally and physically. As seen in his unaffected reaction to Portia’s suicide, Brutus does not have a good handle on his own emotions. Dunsinberre explains that, “Nevertheless, commanding his own emotions, Brutus underestimates the way in which other men are swayed by theirs. Brutus may have more integrity than Antony but he is obtuse about passions which Antony understands” (Dusinberre 290).

Brutus’s disconnection from stable human emotions is his tragic flaw. As those around him are reacting [healthily] to the events around them, Brutus does not comprehend which emotion to use. Could it be that he emotionally shut down as soon as Caesar was killed? Or did he disable his emotions to thwart the efforts of Portia’s insistence of knowing her husband’s secrets? Clayton goes on to say, “There is no mistakening Brutus’s dissembling, and yet it does not register as discreditable, because of the mood and level of exchange, the residual effect of Brutus’s grief manifested to Cassius when Brutus told him of Portia’s death, and Brutus’s evident – it is more apparent – sincerity” (Clayton 251).

There are only two small roles for women in the play. Calphurnia only makes a brief appearance and sternly tells her husband to stay home because of her vivid (and prophetic) dream. Caesar simply puts Calphurnia’s concerns aside and instead listens to Decius’ alternate interpretation of the dream because it was more appealing and positive. Listening to Calphurnia would have resulted in moral repercussions in his role as a leader and his reputation. But not listening to Calphurnia resulted in his assassination by the Senate.

Meanwhile, Portia attempts to prove her role as an equal to Brutus. Her desires to know the conspiracy of the Senate are much more than the pursuit of knowledge. It is an attempt to become the extension of her husband and to have that partnership that her emotional state hungers for. Even though she is attempting to prove her worthiness by physically mutilating herself into becoming a man, her emotional state remains as a woman. Her suicide is resulted from Antony and Octavius’s rise to power and realizing that the Senate’s conspiracy plan has ultimately become a failure. Even though she commits suicide first, Brutus is not too far behind her. Both husband and wife demonstrate an emotional disability and to preserve their honors, they commit suicide.

Shakespeare wrote Julius Caesar as a way to convey the absence of a strong female role in a male dominated world and the consequences of ambition. Calphurnia demonstrates strength in her when she demands that Caesar lie to the Senate and stay home with her to ensure his safety. But the attempt is counter-argued by a stronger male presence in her life. This ignorance on Caesar’s part leads to his death. Portia desires an equal relationship with her husband, and while she can handle the physical pain and demands of a man, she cannot handle the emotional demands of being a man. Even though she may self-mutilate a phallus onto herself, she cannot change on the inside. Both women are neglected and ignored. They are unwanted women. No matter what actions they may have performed or words they may have spoken, they did not have the power to change the story or fate of their husbands.

Bibliography

Clayton, Thomas. “‘Should Brutus Never Taste of Portia’s Death but Once?’ Text and Performance in Julius Caesar.” Studies in English Literature (Rice) 23.2 (1983): 237. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 27 Apr. 2010.

Dunsinberre, Juliet. Shakespeare and the Nature of Women. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 1996. Print.

Mann, David. Shakespeare’s Women. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2008. Print.

Marshall, Cynthia. “Portia’s Wound, Calphurnia’s Dream: Reading Character in Julius Caesar.” English Literary Renaissance 24.2 (1994): 471-87. Print.

Matthews, Honor. Character and Symbol in Shakespeare’s Plays. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1962. Print.

Paster, Gail Kern. “”In the Spirit of Men There Is No Blood”: Blood as Trope of Gender in Julius Caesar.” Shakespeare Quarterly 40.3 (1989): 284. Print.

Rebhorn, Wayne A. “The Crisis of the Aristocracy in Julius Caesar.” Renaissance Quarterly 43.1 (1990): 75-111. JSTOR. Web. 6 Apr. 2010. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2861793>

Shakespeare, William. Riverside Shakespeare. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997. Print.

Smith, Warren D. “The Duplicate Revelation of Portia’s Death.” Shakespeare Quarterly 4.2 (1953): 153-61. Print.

Dreams From 2008

June 9, 2012 Alex Matsuo

The following paper I wrote four years ago for my audition techniques class at SDSU. It’s funny to read it today.

Hello, my name is Alex Matsuo and I am currently a junior at San Diego State University, where I am majoring in Theatre Arts-Performance Emphasis. I grew up acting in a group called Metropolitan Education Theatre Network, lead by Alex H. Urban. In the area of acting, I went to the British American Drama Academy in Oxford last summer and there I was immersed into a conservatory setting of acting techniques and learning Shakespeare and contemporary acting. Some of the guest teachers were residents at the Royal Shakespeare Company and I got to meet Alan Rickman, Jeremy Irons, Fiona Shaw, Julian Glover, Henry Goodman and Deborah Warner. Being in Oxford and being in that intense learning environment was the best experience I have ever had in my life. It also really solidified my dream and passion of being a professional actress and singer.

Where I am now is a transition stage, as I am getting ready to graduate. The way I would describe myself physically would be redhead and overweight. I’ve never dyed my hair or have put any chemicals in it before, so my hair is a virgin. I’m only about 5’5″. And I’m proud to be an average height. I’m not short, but most of my friends are taller than me.

Vocally is an interesting topic. I have had some new discoveries in the past year. I didn’t know I had the ability to sing any soprano part until I started taking voice lessons again. I’ve always considered myself to be an alto and not much of a belter. But as my soprano voice has grown, the stronger my mix has become. I’m really excited to be able to sing more songs. Emotionally, I’m a happy person. I tend to not handle stress well and I’m a very moody person. I’m happy where I am emotionally once I took care of the baggage in my life and learned to deal with my problems instead of drowning in them. A goal I had in my mind was to put more comedy into my life and laugh more often and it has been working.

My hopes and big dreams would be to actually make it in the Broadway world and be able to make a comfortable living doing what I love to do, in the next 10-15 years. I would love to live in New York and be able to do a show such as “Hairspray” or something by Jason Robert Brown and have my whole world dedicated to my craft and not have to worry about taking a job in a Starbucks or a bookstore. I want to finish school at SDSU and I want to go to graduate school at either ACT or UCSD in the next 5 years. I have a few other schools that are really up there such as Yale, NYU and UCLA. I really enjoy teaching and working with kids in a children’s theatre. I love watching them grow from the beginning of the rehearsal process to closing night. It’s really fascinating and a joy to watch the process and to see how many lives are changed because someone believed in them.

Between now and 10 years into the futures, I would like to get married and have a family. I also want to do much more traveling within that time frame. I love taking pictures and I dream of going to Europe and backpacking while taking pictures. All in all, I want to have an interesting life. I want to have an acting career and a family. How I will manage to juggle that, I don’t know yet. I’m sure I will figure it out and cross that bridge as it comes. For now, I’m going to keep working and dreaming so that my hopes and dreams may become a reality someday.

Anton Chekhov and The Seagull

April 11, 2012 Alex Matsuo

Biography

“Medicine is my lawful wife and literature is my mistress” – Anton Chekhov

Anton Chekhov (1860-1904) is known as the father of modern theatre. Anton was born in Taganrog in 1860. Chekhov is best known for his works such as The Seagull, Uncle Vanya, The Cherry Orchard and The Three Sisters. Taganrog is a seaport town, located south of Russia near the Black Sea, and was home to Chekhov and his five siblings. His father, Pavel Yegorovich Chekhov, was a grocer, and a devout Orthodox Christian. Pavel was physically abusive, and often terrorized his family during Chekhov’s childhood. But his mother, Yevgeniya was a storyteller to her children. It is said that Anton gained his gift of storytelling and creative inspiration from his mother. While growing up, Chekhov was an average student and soon gained the reputation of being a prankster and having a wild imagination. Pavel soon found himself in bankruptcy and left his family for Moscow to find work, leaving Chekhov to take care of his family and fend for himself. After graduation from school, Chekhov soon began to study medicine at the University of Moscow and balanced his life between student, caretaker and writer. He began writing for extra money to support his family. He graduated from university and began his practice in medicine in 1892. He often wrote about the street life of Russia in humorous ways and was becoming a success. He was soon approached to start writing plays, in which he became a huge success. Chekhov dramatically changed how the world saw the stage by writing by displaying fully developed characters, dramatic off-stage moments and the use of subtext. In 1901, he married Russian actress, Olga Knipper. In 1904, Chekhov was terminally ill with tuberculosis and later succumbed to the illness. He was buried next to his father in Novodevichy Cemetery in Moscow.

The Seagull

The Seagull was the first of four major plays that Anton Chekhov wrote in his writing career for the theatre. The Seagull was seen as a truly innovative piece of work that set the stage for modern theatre as we see it today. The Seagull spoke the mind of Chekhov through the character, Trigorin. The play also addressed the inner workings of the human soul and its interaction with the emotion of love. In 1896, the premiere of The Seagull in St. Petersburg was a near failure and almost turned Chekhov away from theatre due to its poor reception. The play was the first of its kind at the time that went against the social norms of drama by introducing complex plots, and complex characters and the audience did not receive it well. But the play caught the attention of Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko, who was a friend and playwright himself. He urged Chekhov to bring the play to Moscow Art Theatre and brought in Constantin Stanislavski to direct. The play became an extraordinary success. Had The Seagull not caught the attention of Nemirovich-Danchenko, it would not have been put back on the stage and become a huge success that it was. It was the play’s newfound success that gave Chekhov motivation to give theatre another try, and the drive to continue to write plays. If The Seagull had not been a success at Moscow Art Theatre, the world would have never been given the great pieces of work such as The Cherry Orchard, Uncle Vanya and The Three Sisters.

Staged Reading of “Japanese Eyes/American Heart” in San Diego

January 12, 2012 Alex Matsuo

You are invited to a staged reading of my play…

Japanese Eyes/American Heart by Alex Matsuo

An original play that centers around memory. It tells the story of a granddaughter’s journey to solve the mystery of unexplained war medals of her deceased grandfather who was a Japanese-American soldier in World War II. As she tries to find out what her grandfather faced between the time Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima, she realizes that the journey hits close to home emotionally when discovers the broken lives and the lost identities that resulted from those tragic events.

10^th Avenue Theatre

930 10^th Avenue

San Diego, CA 92101

Tuesday, January 17^th, 2012

7:30pm

Admission: Free

Donations will be accepted

*Run Time: 90 minutes with no intermission.

Comment cards and discussion will follow.

Trailer:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZUHKjl87hw]

Not All Audiences Are the Same

December 27, 2011 Alex Matsuo

The following is a paper I wrote for my theories class during my graduate studies. We were asked to write about our own theories of theatre using theorists we studied for that semester. Since writing this paper, I often revisit it to tweak and alter since my theory has changed numerous times. Hopefully you’ll enjoy…

Theatre as I see it should have a goal of reaching out to the audience to teach a lesson as well as entertain. Theatre should be able and attempt to change lives, as it holds a mirror to society. Teaching and entertaining needs to have a delicate balance, because too much teaching will bore the audience and too much spectacle for the sake of wowing the audience will have them walking away amazed, but their world has not changed. Theatre is for all people from different backgrounds, good or bad. In order to make it appeal to all people, there needs to be different styles and methods in which to execute such a potentially life changing art. Its function should be to allow the audience to escape to a different world from their own and make them laugh, cry and question. It is the duty of the theatre to provide entertainment and teaching through different genres of theatre, from mainstream musical theatre to classical to abstract and even types of theatre that don’t appeal to the general audience. If the theatre were to pick one generic style of theatre, it would truly ensure the death of theatre itself. Only one kind of audience would attend one generic style of theatre and what is the rest of the world to do for entertainment? The theatre would lose its competition to the television, movies and video games.

The term “audience”, depending on the type of theatre that is presented, is a fairly vague term for such a venue that has the capability of reaching a wide vast of different people from all backgrounds. “Audience” tends to be generalized into one type of group. When one picture an audience in your head, they imagine a large number of people packed in a theatre, waiting to be entertained by the event on stage. The visionary’s version of that theatre could vary depending on the specific style of art, language, genre, or visual presentation. There are shows that only appeal to children, such as educational performances, puppet shows, circus, and mainstream musicals such as the Disney On Broadway family; The Lion King, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, just to name a few. They provide entertainment and most of the time, may a large sum of money because of its wide audience appeal. Then there are performances that are only appropriate to be viewed by adults. It may be because of complex language or a complex and unique structure that asks for something different from the audience.

The process of achieving this sort of goal in my vision of the theatre would include a variety of different plays, musicals and new works throughout the season. The mainstream, commercialized, or “Disneyfied” theatre would build the budgets and increase them enough to be able to do the more classical and complex or abstract works that may appeal to a different audience. By including classical theatre into the mixture, there is more opportunity to explore an older style of plays that would include the works of Shakespeare, Marlowe, Moliere, Thyestes, etc. Producing Greek tragedies would bring theatre back to its roots. The theatre I envision would be the familiar proscenium arch with a deep stage in order to accommodate different styles of sets.

The audience should be able to experience a different variety of feelings when it comes to watching a show. In contemporary times, for many people, theatre has become a place to escape from the real world and to forget about one’s troubles for a few hours. With popular musicals (or the “Disneyfied” shows), such as Wicked, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, etc. ending up with long term runs on Broadway as well as productions being put on all over the country and even the world. These shows have an appeal to many people, especially families and young, aspiring, musical theatre performers. Musicals such as these have a greater attraction to the general public. Then there are the audiences who prefer the more challenging, complex and abstract plays from playwrights such as Suzan Lori-Parks, Samuel Beckett, and Caryl Churchill, just to name a few. Plays by these artists have a specific message to tell and the way the message is presented utilizes tools to make the audience member view theatre in a different way than just conventional musicals, or the older style of classical theatre.

Beginning with the most popular and mainstream type of theatre; musical theatre, or as I would like to call it, “Disneyfied” theatre. It is important to address the assumptions associated with this genre because these are feelings reflected from many artists and critics. It is generalized as a genre that is popular with a wide audience and only in existence for purposes of making money. Bertolt Brecht describes the expectations of the audience in terms of the older style of opera, “It is true that the audience had certain desires which were easily satisfied by the old opera but are no longer taken into account by the new. What is the audience’s attitude during an opera; and is there any chance that it will change? (Brecht 451). In the context of Brecht, the audience of the older opera time has been conditioned to enjoy a certain type of theatre filled with spectacle and seen as an event for the wealthy to show off their wealth. In some cases, especially with Wicked, Mamma Mia and other popular shows, there are several productions occurring at once with one set, often rotating the same actors throughout the different productions, same costumes, music, lights, etc.

The criticisms associated with the genre include statements such as, “There isn’t any substance to this.” The shows can be viewed as often surfaced and don’t hit any nerves deep within the audience’s mind. There is no need to question what they are seeing on stage. Shows such as these are focused on spectacle (music, sets, lights) and making money. Theatre such as this is bounded to its standards and rules because that formula makes money. Brecht goes on to say, “We have seen that opera is sold as evening entertainment, and that this puts definite bounds to all attempts to transform it. We see that this entertainment has to be devoted to illusion, and must be of a ceremonial kind. Why? In our present society the old opera cannot be just ‘wished away.’ Its illusions have an important social function. The drug is irreplaceable; it cannot be done without” (Brecht 452-453). This quote is fascinating when it comes to the audience relationships to the theatre.

The second genre that is often under criticism is classical theatre. It can still make a large sum of money due to the material being free domain and can be produced by theatres with a low budget. Or in the opposite idea, theatres can be elaborate in their costumes and sets because they do not need to pay licensing rights to put on a production. Depending on how the classical play is presenting, it can either appeal to a general audience or the play could be interpreted and produced into a piece with mature content and appeal to a specific audience. Classical plays offer more flexibility to alter meaning and themes based on the artistic vision of the director. This genre is generally stereotyped as theatre that only appeals to older people and those of higher intelligence. What is wrongly assumed of classical theatre is that it is accused of being outdated. For example, the language of Shakespeare has been adapted to hundreds of different versions altering time, space and even the genre of comedy and tragedy itself. In the terms of Shakespeare, the Bard can be adapted to appeal to many different types of audience to the general family friendly style of theatre to the more mature content that requires a different audience for viewing. Does this make Shakespeare the perfect playwright and the perfect style of theatre that could appeal to all different kinds of audiences? Maybe. Maybe not. This is because there are audience members out there who will have the inability to comprehend Elizabethan English, whether it’s stemmed from early exposure to Shakespeare that proved too difficult to comprehend at the time, or the audience member will assume that they will be bored because it is “Shakespeare.”

There is also greater risk in producing work such as this because of the older language and if the director and actors do not have a good understanding of the text, the meaning can be lost and all efforts to show the work would be in vain. The acting styles of the actors who participate in this genre of theatre are often challenged with different acting styles. Edward Gordon Craig discusses the actor’s real role in the theatre, “Acting is not an art […] Art arrives only by design. Therefore in order to make any work of art it is clear we may only work in those materials with which we can calculate. Man is not one of these materials” (Craig 393). The audience would be lost because if the actors don’t understand what they are saying, the audience will not understand either. This may require a separation of emotion and physical being within the actor in order to communicate the play effectively. If emotion took over the best of the actor, the text would most likely be lost. Denis Diderot poses the question of the technique of acting that relies solely on emotion, “If the actor were overcome by feeling, how could he play the same part twice running with the same spirit and success? Full of fire at the first performance, he would be worn out and cold as marble at the third” (Diderot 198). The technique of the actor in all three of the genres will alter and change based on the material that they are working on.

The third genre that is presented is the more abstract kind of theatre. This is theatre that may not follow the social norms or structure of creating a play. It may include cross-gendered characters, non-linear plot, and complex language to comprehend. This type of theatre could be stereotypically placed into the parameter that it is only meant for theatre people, scholars, critics, artists, etc. This type of theatre could be meant to educate, and to hold a mirror (or a fun mirror in some cases) to society and show the audience the flaws of our world. Abstract, new works, performance art, etc. challenges the audience to think critically at what they are viewing and the theatre has become more of an educational environment that wants the audience to walk away changed. The acting styles of the actors who participate in this genre of theatre are often challenged with different acting styles. The actor’s role in the theatre is not as tangible as a set design or a costume piece. In terms of the different genres of the theatre, the actors are important in the communication of the story. Craig believed in the separation of emotion and focusing on the movement of the actor to create consistency in the role. Craig describes, “Do away with the actor, and you do away with the means by which a debased stage-realism is produced and flourishes. No longer would there be a living figure in which the weakness and tremors of the flesh were perceptible” (Craig 396). Outsiders can also view this style of theatre as self-indulgent pieces of work that closes the audience off from the artist who is creating. Diderot talks about the differences between art for the self and art for the audience,

“Is it at the moment when you have just lost your friend or your mistress that you will begin composing a poem on her death? No! woe to him who at such a moment delights in his talent. It is when the storm of sorrow is over, when the extreme of sensibility is dulled, when the event is far behind us, when the soul is cal, that one remembers one’s eclipsed happiness, that one is capable of appreciating one’s loss…”(Diderot 201).

What Diderot means by this statement is that the artist should be human and feel the feelings of loss, hurt and grief. It is only after the process is over is when the artist can objectively create art.

A Dramatic Conversation Between the Three Genres: A Short Play by Alex Matsuo

MICKEY: People will pay big money to see my shows!

WILL: Yes, but will the audience learn anything from seeing your performances? With all your glitter, light, smoke and mirrors? They will be taken away to a different world that will teach nothing but how to reflect lights and make people fly around.

MICKEY: But I make people feel good! I take them away from their rough workdays and I keep the kids quiet for three hours. It’s like having a baby sitter and the parents are sitting right next to their child.

FOUNDLING FATHER: Both of you are wrong! I present the audience with unique and different theatrical circumstances that are separate from the social norm. I ask the audience to think about what they are seeing on stage. I am challenging their intellectual minds and I have a message to send and a story to tell.

MICKEY: But can you take a ten-year-old child to a Churchill play?

FOUNDLING FATHER: Well, I suppose you will have to leave the kids at home. But think of the knowledge that these people will embark –

WILL: I may have a difficult language to understand, but if the actor is a good actor, then there is no problem of comprehension. William Shakespeare is being taught to children at a younger age all the time and they seem to understand the storyline.

MICKEY: My style of theatre doesn’t take much intelligence to be enjoyed. The audience doesn’t need to be asked to think about what they are seeing on stage. Especially the young people. After dealing with school and work all day, the last thing they want is to be lectured about some tragic flaws about themselves.

FOUNDLING FATHER: And that’s why you make so much money.

MICKEY: Exactly!

WILL: And your money helps pay for our theatre.

FOUNDLING FATHER: Using other people’s money to fund my visions? I like that.

MICKEY: And I suppose you bring in other types of people who might see my theatre as shallow and mundane with flashy lights.

WILL: I suppose, in some complex way…we all need each other in some sort.

FOUNDLING FATHER: But wait, there is another type of theatre we didn’t include in this conversation. They’re a bit more risqué and violent so to speak.

WILL: Ah…I know of whom you are talking about. Should we even invite them to this conversation?

Fin.

There is the type of theatrical performance that many do not see as theatre. This is the question and argument that I present to you, the reader. There is a style of performance where the viewers pay for a ticket, and they sit in an audience. The stage has a curtain, props, lighting, and blocking. But the content of this show is controversial. There are a few controversial styles of performance where onlookers can say that this genre or style is not theatre. The styles include live sex shows, strippers and even animal slaughter. An Elizabethan form of entertainment, called bear baiting, was often a popular bloody event at the Globe theatre that occurred when Shakespeare’s plays were not running. A bear would be chained and tied down while a pack of dogs were released and the entertainment of the event would be to see who would survive. Bears would sometimes survive and go on to participate in bear-baiting several more times in their lives. The practice is even mentioned in Shakespeare’s The Merry Wives of Windsor.

Slender: […] Why do your
dogs bark so? be there bears i’ the town?

Anne Page: I think there are, sir; I heard them talked of.

Slender: I love the sport well but I shall as soon quarrel at
it as any man in England. You are afraid, if you see
the bear loose, are you not?

Anne Page: Ay, indeed, sir.

Slender: That’s meat and drink to me, now. I have seen
Sackerson loose twenty times, and have taken him by
the chain; but, I warrant you, the women have so
cried and shrieked at it, that it passed: but women,
indeed, cannot abide ’em; they are very ill-favored
rough things. –Act I, Scene I

Events such as these at first glance would not be classified as theatre. But unfortunately for most, there will be a person out there who will find meaning in animal sacrifice being portrayed on stage. Whether to classify any of these styles as theatre is a topic that many will be ready to argue. The type of audience that these events attract are stereotypically individuals who are in the lowest class of people. But there are people of higher class that get some sort of meaning from presentations such as these. The technology of theatre (sets, lights, props, and costumes) is utilized to create a presentation. After careful thought, would the current reader think that this is theatre?

Realistically speaking, plays such as these would not be filling houses of the thousands, depending on the playwright and who is starring in the play would also affect ticket sales, but in the realistic world of community and regional theatres, these works would not be paying for the season’s budget. Between these three genres that I have discussed, although they are all different, in the end they all need each other. The “Disneyfied” theatre will bring in the money and build the budgets necessary to do the classical and abstract pieces. These three genres need each other in order for the other to survive. The “Disneyfied” theatre could quite possibly spark the interest of theatre to a young audience member. Inspiration has to come from somewhere and starting small would be the best way to weed out those who do only enjoy the surfaced productions with the smoke and mirrors.

When it comes to the question of meaning, in retrospective there will be fans of each genre ready to criticize the other two for having pointless life spans on stage. But what needs to be understood is that there is not one universal style of theatre that will appeal to every person who goes to the theatre. The job of the theatre is to entertain, educate, and make the audience question and criticize. But there are audience members who might only want to be entertained. And there may be scholars who want to visit the theatre solely on the purpose of being intellectually challenged. To sum this theory up into a single sentence, not all audiences are the same. There needs to be a wide variety of theatre out there in existence in order to keep theatre alive and thriving.

Works Cited

Brecht, Bertolt. “The Modern Theatre Is the Epic Theatre.” Theatre, Theory, Theatre: The Major Critical Texts from Aristotle and Zeami to Soyinka and Havel. By Daniel Charles Gerould. New York: Applause Theatre & Cinema, 2000. 446-53. Print.

Craig, Edward Gordon. “The Actor and the Übermarionette.” Theatre, Theory, Theatre: The Major Critical Texts from Aristotle and Zeami to Soyinka and Havel. By Daniel Charles Gerould. New York: Applause Theatre & Cinema, 2000. 393-98. Print.

Diderot, Denis. “Conversations on The Natural Son & The Paradox of Acting.” Theatre, Theory, Theatre: The Major Critical Texts from Aristotle and Zeami to Soyinka and Havel. By Daniel Charles Gerould. New York: Applause Theatre & Cinema, 2000. 191-201. Print.

Fisher, James. “The Eugene O’Neill Newsletter.” EOneill.com: An Electronic Eugene O’Neill Archive. Web. 01 Dec. 2010. <http://www.eoneill.com/library/newsletter/x-1/x-1f.htm>.

Lebowitz, Naomi. “Steven’s PAISANT CHRONICLE.” Explicator 61.3 (2003): 160. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 2 Dec. 2010.

The Idea of the “Working” Artist

December 19, 2011 Alex Matsuo

I have been very blessed in the fact that I am making income from my passion. However, there was a time where I did have to work a job that I didn’t very much care for, but it supported my passion so that I could do what I love to do. I’m extremely lucky right now. My job doesn’t feel like a job. But will it last forever? Of course not.

I am not one to turn down an opportunity if it comes my way, especially if it’s a project that I’m passionate about. I know that there will be times where I will make no money from theatre and I’ll have to live like a starving artist.

And there will be times where I will have no opportunities in the theatre. So what does the artist do about it? Sit at home and wait for the next job? I say nay to that. If I’m not working on something, I’ll create my own. I’ll write a play, look into producing something, sing at an open mic night, etc. I always want to be working on something and tapping into my creative side.

What I’m saying to my fellow artists is, if you find yourself not getting work…create your own. It will be a rewarding experience. 🙂