3,484 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Feb 2, 2024 12:29:57 GMT
Some healthy discussion over on the "Just For One Day" prompted me to create this thread. Several of us have been discussing the merits of this new musical about Live Aid which is in previews at the Old Vic. Some of the discussion has centred around how realistic and representative the story is and the motivation behind the audience choosing to buy a ticket. Are they going for the nostalgia of the 1980's music scene? Do they want to be enlightened? Do they want or need to have a moralistic narrative reminding them of the purpose behind the show? Read the thread to get the gist...
My question is: Do audiences want or expect to see real life mirrored on stage or do they accept that theatre productions might distort reality to justify their telling of 'the story'? And (in the case of a show or play based on a real event) is it okay to reinterpret history to suit the needs and trends of modern society?
|
|
1,482 posts
|
Post by mkb on Feb 2, 2024 13:02:07 GMT
I just happened to post on realism in modern films in another thread: theatreboard.co.uk/post/502013I prefer as much historical accuracy in portrayals as possible, but I accept that to convey the essence of what happened, the details may sometimes need to be simplified. A persons's character and actions will, in reality, be full of contradictions and confusions. If you include too many, you may distort the overriding "truth".
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Feb 2, 2024 17:17:55 GMT
Two things going on Historical accuracy: we all know this never happens. From Shakespeare’s history plays to tv dramas, events are rescheduled, added to, omitted, converged etc etc. We accept this and though many people will always think drama is the truth, you can usually look up the actual events somewhere. Richard III is interesting cos Shakespeare did such a good job on him that nobody would question his villainy for centuries. So how far we believe theatre as history is true is one point which merges with t’other point as to how far the dramatist presents the ‘truth’ pertaining to character and emotion. I would say that the dramatist usually gets it right. We have no idea how Lenin, James Joyce and Tristan Zara would have behaved if they had met in Geneva ( think it was ) but Stoppard gets it absolutely right and makes a good, funny, revealing play about of it. The writer’s imagination is what counts. Another example is the meeting of Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth I in the Schiller play. Brilliant psychology which I think is perfect but of course they never met. So two examples of plays where it didn’t happen but the writer gets it right about the people. When there are people who ‘were there’ it becomes even more interesting because we get raw history which is all about our late Queen’s ‘recollections may differ’. We are suffering all the time from this in our time because we now have so much ability to record events but no historical perspective on them as yet. It is like we have concertinered ourselves and it is painful. I welcome a dramatist’s take on contemporary events. Look how sharp James Graham is on current politics. The most striking example of how a dramatist can do better than a documentary or media piece is the Post Office scandal, the Mr Bates play on tv. Seeing how much this has driven public debate makes you wonder again about how plays worked in the past when they were sometimes the only way of expressing dissent.
|
|
3,484 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Feb 2, 2024 22:31:14 GMT
Great reply lynette - thank you - and thanks to mkb also.
|
|
4,983 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Feb 3, 2024 8:42:31 GMT
The song Someone in a tree springs to mind!
|
|
1,061 posts
|
Post by David J on Feb 3, 2024 13:10:57 GMT
When you get down to it the writer always has an agenda. We all have agendas and motives behind what we do. Otherwise why do we want to do them. Why would a playwright waste days of his life writing a play he has no feeling or purpose to create
I’ve seen all sorts of escapist, message driven, enlightening or “historically accurate” plays and media in the past decade. What matters to me is how well written they are.
Now to be honest, nowadays I’m also very picky, for financial reasons, so I’m also factoring whether the writers agenda is something I want to spend my money and watch. And I trust people’s descriptions of the shows and their thoughts of the quality on this forum to make those decisions
But coming out of a play what matters to me is execution. Whether it’s just the writing, the acting, look of it, or whether the writer gets their agenda across consistently. If it’s good or bad I’ll say so
|
|
|
Post by danb on Feb 3, 2024 16:04:48 GMT
When the subject is as feted an event as Live Aid though, you’d better know exactly what you’re trying to say and how you’re going to say it (preferably before previews.)
|
|
|
Post by jaqs on Feb 3, 2024 21:52:48 GMT
Mostly I want to be transported away from real life. I’m not fussed about historical accuracy.
|
|