Making theatre more accessible. Sort of.

J. Kelly Nestruck posted this in his Globe & Mail blog this morning. It reminded me that I did, indeed, read about it earlier this week. I just never got around to blogging about it.

The National Theatre in London is planning to broadcast several of its productions live in movie theatres throughout the UK, making the theatre more accessible to those outside of London. Tickets at the movies will be about £10 (which is about what it costs to see certain shows at the National itself). In order to recoup the costs of this broadcast, they are also proposing to sell them for broadcast abroad. The first production in this series, which will be called NT Live, is Racine's Phèdre starring Helen Mirren (!!!!!).

This project takes its cue from a few places, not the least of which is our own Stratford Festival's filming of Ceasar and Cleopatra starring Christopher Plummer. It will be shown in select Cineplex theatres throughout Canada on January 31.

While the filming of theatre is not really anything new, what is interesting to me about the National's project is that they plan to broadcast the show live--no edits--so the audience in the movie theatre will see the same show as the audience in the theatre. More or less. There are still things lost in translation from one medium to the other...but this is sort of an in between mediums idea, isn't it?

Will we see more of this in the future? I guess it depends on how these runs go...I think I will reserve judgment until I have actually seen one of these play-movies.

Theatre is useful.

"We need a type of theatre which not only releases the feelings, insights, and impulses possible within the particular historical field of human relations in which the action takes place, but employs and encourages those thoughts and feelings which help transform the field itself."

--Bertolt Brecht

Lyn Gardner of The Guardian wrote a post today in her Theatre Blog about theatre's role in world politics and events. I tend to believe all good theatre is "useful," and even some of the not-so-good theatre, regardless of how far-removed it may be from the event to which it speaks. I'm not sure there are any new stories, either on stage or in history. I think, for the most part, we are repeating ourselves. We are not inventing new tales but instead finding new ways of telling them. And we are constantly reflecting, trying to better understand ourselves and each other (or, at least, we should be). Given this, as long as a piece of theatre was once relevant, isn't there a good chance it will be relevant again in the future? There must be a reason Shakespeare is still produced 400 odd years later. I think theatre serves a greater purpose to humanity than we may ever understand...after all, we've been debating the art of theatre since the dawn of time.

Something Worth Investing In...

Today The Guardian is reporting a new initiative to offer free seats at various theatres to people 26 and under. This is simply another affirmation that I would be better off in London.

I would love to go to the theatre, the opera, the ballet, everything, more. Or at all. But the unfortunate reality is that I cannot afford any of these things. True, some of them offer better and better discount programs, but the reality is that, for someone working at minimum wage or even just above, a $20 ticket is still expensive. It means I manage to make it out maybe once a month instead of once a week...or more! I think this is probably the reality for many artists in a position similar to mine--just starting out, etc.

Also, I appreciate the fact that the Arts Council in Britain really feels that this program they've started is an investment in culture. It's an investment undervalued in most other places, which is unfortunate. After all, what will we be remembered or known for if not our culture? And what will that mean if we have none? How can we have any when we do not see it as a worthwhile investment?

I don't propose to have all the answers...but at least I am thinking about the questions.

Is this a prop knife I see before me?

The Guardian theatre blogs have been all over this story today...

By the way, I know I expressed my wonder at the amount of theatre-related content they generate yesterday (so much that I don't even have time to tackle any of the other arts talked about in that particular publication) but I decided today that what I really love is that they don't have an "Entertainment" section and they don't divide the arts up so you have to hunt them down in different sections. Rather, they have a Culture section. Ponder that, Stephen Harper, while you enjoy your time off...

Anyway, back to the story (I am linking to this blog post because I liked it the best and it's my blog so I can do that. Also, the Phyllida Lloyd production of Mary Stuart referenced in the above link is one of the most exquisite things I have ever seen on stage. But I digress). Apparently an actor accidentally slit his own throat in an Austrian production of Schiller's Mary Stuart after someone left a real knife in place of the fake one he was supposed to use. Fortunately, he missed his carotid artery and, like a trooper, was back on stage the following night. The lesson here? Check your props. And not necessarily because someone might be harboring a grudge, but because people misplace things and accidents happen. And you don't want to wind up dead as a result. Therefore, you should especially check any prop that is a weapon.

More even than that, respect your props. I can't tell you how many stories I've heard from stage combat experts about actors who have accidentally died by messing around with prop weapons. The classic example being prop guns: actors have accidentally killed themselves or others even using blanks if they are shooting at point blank because firing the gun still results in an explosion and a forceful column of hot air and gas. This can kill you just as dead as a bullet. You should treat any fake weapon as if it were real. In turn, this will also help you as an actor...one of the biggest problems actors have in stage combat, and in general, is believability, if you will. You want people to believe it's real. So how can anyone believe your prop gun is real if you don't treat it like a real gun?

These are just my thoughts after reading the post. And this comes from someone who didn't really get all this until she fired a real gun (with The Photographer and his family in Utah, by the way, quite the family outing). I used to walk around the RADA in a skirt with my prop knife sheathed in my Ugg boot. Killer.