My Skewed View of Death – According to Steve Huff

May 23, 2015 Alex Matsuo

I’m not an avid follower of Steve Huff, who runs Huff Paranormal. However, I do watch his stuff from time to time. I have to give the guy credit, as he has drawn a very large audience with his work and giving exposure to the paranormal field. He has made a name for himself specifically for the fact that he released a video of his communication attempts with Robin Williams, after the famous actor committed suicide. I’m not going to comment on that. This blog is specific to his published session where he tried to communicate with the late B.B. King, who passed away on May 14, 2015 in his sleep.

On May 15th, Huff posted a video where he tries to communicate with King, at the request of over 50 of his followers, per the screenshot below.

Steve Huff posts his session with BB King.

Given that 24 hours hadn’t even passed since the singer’s death, I had a moral issue with it. Given that I recently dealt with a devastating death myself, I found the timing to be extraordinarily distasteful. So, I let Huff know how I felt.

According to Steve Huff, my view of death is skewed and negative. My comment was not to defend the dead, but instead, speaking for the grieving. As paranormal investigators, we seem to forget that the dead were once living people. Regardless of how long ago they died, they left behind loved ones who mattered to them far more than what we matter to them. If the deceased had the choice to communicate with us, or their loved ones, I’ll take a gamble to say that they will gravitate towards their loved ones.

The grieving people left behind are the ones who are suffering. They are the ones screaming and crying at the loss of their precious family member who is no longer with them. No longer can they hug them in this world, tell them that they love them, hear their voices speaking to them. That void is devastatingly fresh after a loved one passes.

Sometimes, there is a difference in doing the right thing, and what the public wants. Sometimes the public doesn’t want you to do the right thing, but instead they want you to indulge their curiosities and needs. Feeding the beast isn’t always the right thing to do.

Perhaps my view on death is skewed and negative right now…and yeah, that is because my mother died less than 6 months ago. I miss her, and I would give anything to have her back with me. But that isn’t possible. If that makes my comment silly and irrelevant, so be it.

To Steve Huff (if you’re reading) and his defenders/fans, this is who I am speaking up for:

How would Shirley King feel about Huff’s session with his Andre’s Box and SCD-1?

While I can’t speak for her, I can relate to Shirley King in this picture, as it has been me since January 30, 2015. I still scream and cry, even though almost four months have passed. When you have lost a parent, your rock and your foundations are gone. It is a pain that I wish on no one. But it is a pain that I wish more people have compassion and sympathy for. But in truth, I doubt that Shirley was even offered an option or a choice.

There is a certain decorum that we as a society follow after someone dies. Typically, people gather and come together to support the people left behind by the deceased. There is the process of grief that we all feel when we lose a loved one. Those who come together in support understand that there are cues to follow in terms of what the grieving are ready to endure. What that is can vary from making funeral arrangements to getting out of bed. Grief is a funny process that can leave you catatonic on some days. In connecting this with the paranormal, I feel that even if establishing communication could lead to the Holy Grail of data, the grieving needs to be considered.

I’m not going to question whether Huff really made contact with B.B. King, as I feel it is moot. It is the very action of trying to establish contact with a dead celebrity, and then post it for the public right away without any regard to the grieving. Just because someone was famous, doesn’t mean that they are fair game for continued exploitation after death for views or social media followers. They deserve better than that. Their living relatives that are left behind deserve better than that. These people are not research tools…they are human beings. I personally feel that if Huff was genuine in his actions, he would have privately contacted King’s family (or representatives) to let them deal as they decide on what to do with the data of THEIR deceased member of THEIR family.

In closing, that decision should not have been made for them.

The Performance of Ghost Hunting Part I

March 30, 2015January 6, 2023 Alex Matsuo

This is a two-part post about my studies into the relationship between performance and the act of ghost hunting.

A performance is typically defined as an event where there is someone who is presenting something, and there are a group of people observing. This definition of performance is not limited to only theatres or television and movies. A performance can take place at nearly any time of day at any kind of location. Performances can happen at school with the popular crowd, and they can happen at ghost hunts. Scholars have written thousands of book on performance studies and there are even degrees dedicated to the discipline. As a society that is ever growing and changing on a regular basis, there are so many different types of performances out there that appease almost every person out there. From traditional musicals that warm the heart, to the heart-wrenching dramas that influence someone to call their mother to tell them they love her, to the soul shattering avant-garde performance that makes you analyze what it means to be human….performance is an essential part of our existence that is necessary in order for us to survive and thrive.

Before we dive into the performance of ghost hunting, let us take a moment to consider the relationship between performance and spirituality. The earliest roots in theatre lie in ancient Greece in something called, “ritual reenactment”. Back before theatre and performance was established, the ancient Greeks wanted to honor the gods by telling stories of their greatness. This initially began as “oral tradition” where someone would dramatically tell stories of the gods, with an audience watching. The audience would then become performers themselves and spreading the stories around like wildfire. With ritual reenactment, these early performances including singing hymns and performing some kind of movement.

To keep this along the lines of being the abridged version, the villages and tribes began to compete with each other by adding costumes, live music, and written texts in their performances for the gods. One could argue that the original audiences were the gods, and the transition from performing for them to performing to fellow humans was one of the breakthrough moments in the creation of live theatre. Overall, theatre is a very spiritual experience, which the philosopher Aristotle argued that it was needed for the purposes of catharsis, meaning the purging of emotions. If you have ever cried during a movie, you had a cathartic experience. Catharsis was seen as a necessity for cleansing the soul.

With the thought in mind that theatre was originally intended to be spiritual and for the gods as a gift, is it a surprise that there are rumors about theatres being haunted in the first place. Some of my favorite cliché ghost stories come from the urban legend of haunted theatres from the spurned woman in white who lost her chance to be on the stage to the Macbeth curse causing shenanigans in each production, there is a strong connection there. Until the media came into existence with television and film, theatre was the vehicle for expressing society’s belief in the paranormal, and you can watch that belief evolve over time by just analyzing the plays from each time period.

I suppose that the title of this article can be misleading, as it is not an article on how to perform a paranormal investigation or ghost hunt, there are enough of those books out there on the market. Instead, it is a venture into a theory that theatre people, whether they are actors, tenant, directors, dancers, etc. they are inadvertently capturing the attention of the ghosts and causing a performance from both the living and the dead. Artistic people are interesting enough on their own, and I would not be surprised if a ghost chose to attempt communication with an artistic person over someone whose not. I will say that artists are very open-minded to the world around. Could they be lifting a psychic wall around them and making them more vulnerable to having some sort of communication with the other side? If you were dead, and you couldn’t find a way to communicate with the living, and you found someone who could hear you, wouldn’t you do whatever you could muster up to catch their attention? The answer is probably yes. But this isn’t a performance. That is the lost seeking out a solution. When the situation is reversed, and there is someone trying to communicate with a deceased person, the ghost isn’t able to communicate in the way that they used to in life, so they have to pull out the dramatic displays in order to get their point across. I would imagine that this is an extremely frustrating endeavor.

The most obvious example of performances in ghost hunting is in paranormal reality shows that became increasingly popular in the early 21^st century. It is a far cry from ritual reenactment and the once cathartic experience that was the performance space. I think perhaps the reason why for this widespread popularity was the fact that the paranormal is an unknown area of knowledge. You can’t get a college degree in paranormal studies and many people who do come forward with experiences in the public eye are portrayed as being insane and not to be taken seriously. At the end of the day, these production companies need to make money. You make money by drawing in an audience, and you keep that audience by continuing to make your show entertaining. I won’t say that the “paratainment” business has sullied the investigation field, but instead, has brought exposure to the paranormal and hopefully making people more open-minded about the existence of ghosts. In the last ten years, there has also been a dramatic rise in the number of ghost tours at numerous haunted locations, where a group of people will go ghost hunting for a night while locked in a building with a guide. The paranormal reached a new height when it came to monetizing the potential interactions with the dead, which many people pay big money for. But because the factor of money is now included in the experience, I have to wonder if along with tickets being paid, if there was an expectation of goods to be delivered (such as a paranormal experience). In turn, does this turn ghosts into entertainers? And if so, what does this mean for the ghosts at the Tenth should Jeff decide to move forward with the guided ghost tours?

I would like to say that my investigations and research into the building have not subjected the ghosts into being put into a situation where they are being asked to perform tricks, since I don’t expect them to ever perform for me. If they choose not to communicate, while I may be disappointed, I acknowledge that it is their right to not talk. But another researcher from the outside looking in may have a different opinion. Where is that fine line between requesting communication and asking the ghosts to essentially perform tricks? I suppose that it is all in the eye of the beholder and the ghosts that are being placed in that situation. If you were to ask me what my long-term goal was for the Tenth, it would be that someday the most prestigious researchers in the paranormal and psychic phenomenon visit the Tenth. It would be great to be able to secure the building for a weekend (at the very least) and let these researchers loose in the building and see what comes of it.

Performers, in terms of actors, dancers, musicians, and artists, seem to be completely different people compared to business professionals or those who don’t consider themselves to be artistically minded. For example, let us go back to the Ganzfeld experiment, which is the sensory deprivation experiment that leads to the altered state of consciousness. There was a study conducted in 1992 where the American Society for Psychical Research used twenty of the most gifted students from the Julliard School in New York City and put them through the sender-receiver experiment. The results were extraordinary because there was a success rate of 50%, which was double the success expectation rate. The facilitators of the experiment, Charles Honorton and Marilyn Schlitz then used eight musicians for the remainder of the experiment. Six out of the eight students either had direct hits or a 75% success rate. Again, these are extraordinary results. The theory behind this success rate was due to the participants; especially the musicians have a dissociated state of mind. Very much like meditation, being dissociated is very much like the feeling of being on autopilot and disconnecting from the outside word. According to John G. Kruth, the executive director of the Rhine Research Center, jazz musicians who often improvise their music will go into this state as they play, channeling the environment around them as they make up their own tune. What would happen if we allowed a bunch of actors to go in and ghost hunt for a night? What kind of results would come up from the night? If we go by the results of the study of the Julliard students and the Ganzfeld experiment, it seems as though there could be potential of a productive interaction with the ghosts.

Ready for more? Here’s Part II.

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.

A “Brief” Rant About the Oxfordian Theory of Shakespeare’s Authorship

January 4, 2013 Alex Matsuo

Most people know that I’m very much obsessed with Shakespeare. I studied his work quite immensely in undergraduate and graduate school, and I still conduct research for my own personal endeavors. I’m by no means an expert, while some disagree (aw, shucks). But I can work my way out of paper bag when it comes to Shakespeare.

I think one of my biggest pet peeves is the authorship debate. I’m open-minded to different theories as long as they can support their case with good research. However, speaking out to question Shakespeare’s authorship without anything to support your claims infuriates me. But at the same time, there is nothing better than debunking claims…

…especially when it comes to the Oxfordian theory.

For those of you who don’t know, the Oxfordian theory is the theory that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford actually authored Shakespeare’s works. In fact, you might be familiar with a certain movie that came out last year, “Anonymous”, which is loosely based on this theory. My problems with that movie can make up a whole other blog post (especially when they convey the “real” Shakespeare as nothing more than a bumbling idiot).

The Oxfordian theory has been rejected by most experts and scholars in the field. There are obvious flaws to it. There is no evidence, at least scientific evidence in carbon dating along with tangible proof, that there was any connection between Shakespeare and de Vere. “Oxfordians” reject the methods that historians have used to make their case, and unless you’re “in the loop”, you couldn’t possibly understand how de Vere could be the actual author of Shakespeare’s works.

The Oxfordian theory especially loses when it comes to the plays and sonnets that were written AFTER Edward de Vere passed away in 1604. Keep in mind that Shakespeare passed away in 1616. And not to mention that many of Shakespeare’s plays that were written and performed post-1604 had references to post-1604 events, after Edward de Vere died.

King Lear was written between 1603 and 1606 and first performed in front of the court of King James I on December 26th, 1606.

Timon of Athens was first performed between 1607 and 1608.

Coriolanus was believed to have been written between 1605 and 1608, and the opening scenes of the play (the grain riots) are believed to be a reference to the Midland Revolt and the Inquisition of Depopulation of 1607. An event that Edward de Vere could not have foreseen unless he could predict the future.

Antony and Cleopatra was written and performed around 1606.

Macbeth was believed to have been written around 1606 while the play’s first performance was in 1611.

The Tempest was written around 1610/1611 with its first performance in 1611 and is most famous for being Shakespeare’s last written play.

Henry VIII is probably the most questionable one when it comes to dating and whether it was actually written by Shakespeare (Oxfordian theory aside….Ben Jonson anyone?). Most date the play to have been written around 1613.

And then we have the wonderful sonnets that were being written long after 1604. Some are even dated to have been written up to 1621.

Wait…didn’t Will die in 1616?

Yes, he did. And keep in mind that I am not bashing ALL authorship theories, just the Oxfordian because it is the most ridiculous and yet seems to have the largest following. There are authorship theories that I will give credit to. While I consider myself to be a lover of Shakespeare, I would be a fool to believe that Shakespeare wrote all of his stuff. There is clear evidence of manuscripts and certain sections of the plays that are considered to be “un-Shakespearean.” Well, we have to ultimately decide, what is Shakespeare? We are dependent on centuries old documents and it’s hard to decipher what we really have that is authentic or not.

Back to topic.

Here is a list of theories that suggest Shakespeare was a fraud and my rebuttals against them.

This was inspired by Roland Emmerich’s video with his explanation as to why Shakespeare was a fraud. Watch it first, and then read below.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXhR0PFLkqs]

We have no documented evidence of anything done in Shakespeare’s handwriting.

Actually, yes we do. We have his revisions he had done to the play of Sir Thomas More by Anthony Munday. Sir Thomas More has been concluded that it was written by several authors with each author labeled with the name “Hand” and then a letter following the name. There are about three pages of Sir Thomas More that are accepted as being written by Shakespeare’s hand, known as “Hand D.” The handwriting was similar to the existing signatures of Shakespeare as well as similar verse structure as his other works. And not to mention similar spelling characteristics that were deemed “Shakespearean.”

In reference to the six shaky signatures of Shakespeare, back then, penmanship was atrocious in general. The Earl of Leicester, Robert Dudley’s, love letters to the Queen makes the doctors’ handwriting look like calligraphy.

Also, keep in mind that even know Shakespeare is now a famous figure, back in his time, he was a commoner. And we rarely, if ever, have personal correspondence from commoners. All we really have are some royal love letters because the Vatican got a hold of them somehow.

Shakespeare’s daughters couldn’t read or write.

Unless you were a wealthy woman, female commoners didn’t read or write and certainly did not attend school. And let’s not forget that Shakespeare was very much absent from the lives of his wife, Anne Hathaway, and their daughters.

Shakespeare wrote about the aristocracy and showed he had extensive knowledge while Ben Jonson wrote about the people he knew; the common people.

First off, Ben Jonson was hardly the view of the people. He was not very well liked as a playwright and he is known to have been a jerk. Second, the only plays that dealt with the English royalty were the history plays which he took from Hollinshed’s Chronicles, he didn’t gain from personal knowledge. Also, it was very common back in the day to write favorably about the aristocracy, and Elizabeth was known to be a supporter and patron to Shakespeare. Write for your audience. Also, Shakespeare did appeal to the commoners, the groundlings didn’t attend his plays because they were forced to.

Shakespeare doesn’t mention the death of his 11-year old son in any of his works. How can a writer who writes from his heart and soul never mention this?

I believe sonnet #33 debunks this theory:

Full many a glorious morning have I seen
Flatter the mountain-tops with sovereign eye,
Kissing with golden face the meadows green,
Gilding pale streams with heavenly alchemy;
Anon permit the basest clouds to ride
With ugly rack on his celestial face,
And from the forlorn world his visage hide,
Stealing unseen to west with this disgrace:
Even so my sun one early morn did shine
With all triumphant splendor on my brow;
But out, alack! he was but one hour mine,
The region cloud hath mask’d him from me now.
Yet him for this my love no whit disdaineth;
Suns of the world may stain when heaven’s sun staineth.

Shakespeare's_children

Also, after Shakespeare’s son, Hamnet, died, his work took on a more darker tone. For example, we have Hamlet, The Winter’s Tale, and King John. King John contains unexpected moments of deep emotion, and scholars believe that was Shakespeare working through his emotions. Plus, it’s obvious to note Hamnet and Hamlet are awfully similar.

Shakespeare demonstrates extensive knowledge about other countries and appears to be well-educated with an extensive vocabulary.

Just because I write a play about a mathematician doesn’t mean that I’m a math wiz. Just because I’ve written a play about Japanese internment, doesn’t mean that I was actually there. Not only that, Shakespeare had sources to draw from to explain his extensive “knowledge.” But anyone who really looks at the text will see that it was written by someone who clearly hadn’t traveled outside of his home. I can write about China all I want, but you will be able to certainly tell that I’ve never been there. Also, when it comes to his vocabulary, let’s not forget that the Oxford English Dictionary uses Shakespeare as the origin of words that may have been around for decades prior.

The original plan of Shakespeare’s burial site had him holding a sack of grain, not a quill and parchment paper.

_41619432_shakespearebust203long

Outside of London city lines, a job in the theatre was viewed as inferior and easilydismissed. The change in the burial site plans was only allowed by special license from the Master of the Revels. Of course he had another job to make ends meet. That is still relevant to many involved in the theatre today; you need a second job to pay the bills.

The last will of Shakespeare does not mention his works, how can someone not care about their life’s work? That must prove that Shakespeare didn’t write his plays.

That theory assumes that Jacobeans valued playbooks and intellectual property as highly as we do in our modern age, when they actually didn’t. In fact, in order to print a play and make money off of it, you didn’t need to own it. Look at the quartos of Shakespeare’s work and copies of the folio. All you had to do was register it with the stationer. Ben Jonson seemed to be the only playwright back then who cared about the printing and ownership of his plays.

In closing, there are a lot of theories out there regarding Shakespeare’s authorship. While there are theories with credibility, it is important to investigate and debunk the theories that don’t have tangible support behind it. The idea that it was all one big conspiracy, like “Anonymous” conveys, is highly unlikely. Not only would that be extremely difficult to keep hidden, but also, the fact that there is very little proof showing that this conspiracy actually happened is noteworthy. Finally, it is important to note that while there are theories out there that potentially show that Shakespeare may have been a fraud, these theories are arguable and vulnerable to contradicting views, even more so than the argument that Shakespeare actually wrote his works.

Where Do Ideas Come From?

August 12, 2012 Alex Matsuo

Here we are almost half way done with August. How is it that summer is almost over? I haven’t posted in quite some time mainly due to the fact that I’ve gotten extremely busy in the last few months unexpectedly. Busy is good. Very good.

I’ve been pondering the idea of…well, ideas. I’ve been thinking about the origin of ideas lately and wondering where the most brilliant ones come from. I tend to find inspiration from brainstorming with my friends and colleagues. I also find inspiration in nature and people watching. People watching truly is fascinating if you want to learn about mankind. There are so many different people, and each individual human being has their own expanded story waiting to be told. There are so many dynamics and different levels of energy out there in the world.

I was also talking to a few other people and we discussed how drugs may have had a lot to do with some of the more brilliant ideas. Can we only achieve genius with outside influences? Do they unlock a part of our brain that is untapped when we’re sober?

This is a short blog, but I would love to hear your thoughts and opinions as to where ideas come from.

The Creative World That Surrounds Me

April 20, 2012 Alex Matsuo

First of all, many apologies for not keeping up with this blog. I’ve had lots of exciting things come my way the last few months and I’ve gotten wrapped up in the whirlwind of the awesomeness. Is that a word? If not, I don’t care. I’m still using it.

Recently I’ve taken notice of all the wonderful and creative people in my life. Being involved in theatre has meant that I’ve taken for granted the fantastic creativity that my friends exhibit to the world around them. They inspire me. Until now, I hadn’t stopped and smelled the roses. I stopped and really thought about and took in the fact that I’m surrounded by artistic creativity. It’s not exclusive to just my theatre friends. Even my non-theatre friends have some amazing creative projects happening in their lives where I just kind of stand there with my jaw dropped in awe.

Sometimes, I feel like creativity is put into a category or a bubble of sorts. Only reserved for the artists, actors, singers, musicians, etc. But believe it or not, there is creativity happening all around us where we least expect it. Creativity has led to technological and scientific breakthroughs. Creativity has provided a form of catharsis for those who think they aren’t creative. Accept it or not, but our lives revolve around either our own creativity, or the creativity of others. When we listen to music, read a book, look at graffiti, go to the movies, watch TV…it’s all from someone’s creative (and sometime’s corporate-centric) mind. I meet so many people who say, “Oh I’m not creative like you.” Or, “It’s dangerous to have a career solely based on creativity.” I disagree and yet, agree.

“It’s dangerous to have a career solely based on creativity.”

I agree with this statement. It is dangerous. It’s a shame to admit it, but it is dangerous to have a career that completely depends on the quality of your talent and creativity. It’s easy to put your creativity aside to provide for yourself and a family. It’s necessary at that point. Unless you’re very talented, meaning that people will pay big bucks for your work, hear you talk, and see you perform…it’s a good idea to have a plan B career so that your job can supplement your passions. It’s partly what I do. But I manage to find work that is relevant to my degree in a world that perceives itself as not creative. Schools are cutting the arts program first, and it’s sad because creativity is needed for human survival. Otherwise, people would be walking around like robots following the status quo and unable to think for themselves, let alone think outside the box. I try to find creativity in all aspects of life, even in the science and mathematics departments (even though I’m terrible at it). It took someone thinking outside the box, especially to come up with the scientific name, “Ytu brutus“. It makes you wonder…how much creativity is out there and we haven’t take a moment to notice it?

“Oh I’m not creative like you.”

Well, have you ever tried? I truly believe that everyone has a creative side that they can tap into. It’s all about having the bravery to give it a shot, and the sense of humor to laugh at yourself if you think you look totally ridiculous. I’m not good at painting at all, but I do it anyway…for myself. My paintings probably won’t ever be seen by others except myself, and I’m okay with that. Tapping into my creative side is theraputic for me. I work through stress and emotions by singing, writing, painting, and moving my body to music (I don’t call it dancing). I can say that I’m not as good as others when it comes to certain artistic venues, but I do have my strengths. But there’s always going to be someone out there better than me. And whether they are famous for their work or not, there’s always someone out there whose put in more effort and work than I have. And you know what? That’s okay. I know many white collars who work corporate life by day, but then by night they put on the torn-sleeve shirts, ripped jeans, and go to band practice and write music. The secret agents of creativity are probably my favorites. You wouldn’t think they had this creative side until you get to know them. It’s like meeting a superhero…I’ll admit it. I get excited when I find out people’s creative passions and I always want to talk more to them about it.

My advice to anyone reading this: Take a moment right now. Yes, right now. And think about all the people in your life. Got it? Okay. Now pick a person. Think about their creative side. Think about what they do. Think about how their creative work has influenced and/or inspired you. Now, move on to another person. Before you stop, think about yourself. Think about what you do that is creative. What is your creative outlet? What do you do that you are passionate about? What helps you escape the stresses of life? What helps your mind to get moving?

There is creativity all around us. We just have to remind ourselves to take a moment and enjoy the fact that we are so lucky to have a left brain and a right brain to keep ourselves creatively logical.

Till next time…

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.