The Deadly Theatre: Questions

1. Is theatre nothing more than entertainment?

Everyone is entitled to his/her opinions. Some people call it a whore: impure; taking money and leaving short on pleasure. In my opinion, however, entertainment is only a thin slice of what theatre can extend to. It's a vast field of possibility where anything is possible and everything is expressible.

2. How does the deadly theatre take easily to Shakespeare? 

In the eyes of Brook, the deadly theatre smugly secures itself into the works of William Shakespeare. Considering the renown and reverence of his plays, the work itself is a beautiful piece of work that no one can annul its design and meaning. A good interpretation of any of Shakespeare's work is impossible to criticize. Many of his plays are what "seem like the proper way - they look lively and colorful, there is music and everyone is all dressed up, just as they are supposed to be in the best of classical theatres (Brook 10)." Even with the panache of the portrayal, we somehow find the rendition boring and tedious.

3. Is "boringness" a certain guarantee of a worthwhile event? 

In a certain way, according to Brook, "the right degree of boringness is a reassuring guarantee of a worthwhile event (Brook 11)." It provides the perfect mixture between of excitement and monotony; "too much and the audience is driven out of their seats, too little and it may find the theme too disagreeably intense. (Brook 11)" I agree with this concept because too much excitement can more often than not be too much. I like to think of it as cake. If you put in 9 cups of sugar, it's going to be mawkish and excessive. Boringness, however is not a guarantee of a worthwhile event, as nothing ensures a good turnout. The audience, the piece is all subjective to what the result will be.

4. What role does mediocrity play? 

Mediocrity is a good medium of two extremes. It helps us balance the sweet with the sour, the ice to the fire and too much work with too little work. It's an equilibrium of people's distate and taste that aid us to reach a good means of general amiability.

5. What is the difference between passing down "meaning" and "manner?" 

"There it is meaning that is communicated - and meaning never belongs to the past. It can be checked in each man's own present experience. But to imitate the externals of acting only perpetuates manner - a manner hard to relate to anything at all (Brook 12)." I thought it was appropriate to quote that part of the book. It perfectly answers the question and it gives us insight deeper into the trenches of its intentions. I think Brook is trying to say that meaning is variable (extendable and moldable) and that manner is stuck, concrete.

6. Is it true that "the best dramatists explain the least?" Can you think of some examples from plays you have seen or read? 

In our society today, (especially in an academic setting) we are so focused on nailing the meanings and intentions of others' writings. These people reflect on the past and try to imitate the original creative enactment of a piece and it ends there. There's no further research that needs to be done because it would be useless.
In a certain way, I can agree with this because silence can yell into your ear if used properly. And sometimes just enveloping and encompassing the character at hand rather than elaborately analyzing a text can provide a better result.
I haven't seen very many works of theatre, and it saddens me to say this, but there is no outstanding individual that just pops to mind. I'm sure if I look back at my history at a slower pace, I'm sure I'll be able to find a few, but as of now, there are no actors/actresses that just position themselves to the bottom of my brain.

7. How can you go from Deadly Theatre to Living Theatre as an actor? 

"In a living theatre, we would each day approach the rehearsal putting yesterday's discoveries to the test, ready to believe that the true play has once again escaped us. But the Deadly Theatre approaches the classics from the viewpoint that somewhere, someone has found out and defined how the play should be done." I think this is pretty self-explanatory. Theatre is subjective and can be molded into one's perspectives. To try and find the initial intentions of the play precipitates the oncoming deadly theatre.

8. How did Pekin Opera lose its connectedness to the life of society around it? 

The real Pekin Opera was the perfect example of how its exterior forms remained constant even as time rolled by - like a monument. But as time continued, it was inevitable that the life around the society would somehow affect its state. Now, "few of the attitudes and meanings of the traditional Pekin Opera relate to the new structure of thought in which this people now lives (Brook 15)." This reflects how the state of society somehow impacts how theatre is formed.

9. At the heart of the meaning of LIving Theatre: "theatre is always a self destructive art, and it is alway written on the wind." What is your interpretation of this? 

I think it's trying to say something that has been coming up a long throughout this blog post. I think it's trying to say that a work of theatre always have a single fault that precipitates the downfall of itself. Also, I think it's trying to say that theatre is always changing and moving different directions as wind is never still.

10. According to Brook, what should be influencing theatre at all times? 

I believe he said something about time affecting theatre as with time theatre always changes. Because theatre always changes, it offers us fresh perspectives and ideas that are implemented into theatre. New color schemes, set designs keep our eyes excited and curious for what it will supply us with next.


What is a deadly spectator? 
Is there flexibility in modern theatre?