"Break a Leg: The case for onstage violence."

[slimandslam]

Posted: 5/3/06 at 2:41pm

Hmm. Slate, the respected online magazine, has just posted an article called "Break a Leg." The author, Zachary Pincus-Roth, argues that plays need some more good old-fashioned thrills (including violence) to recapture their audience. As you can imagine, Exhibit A is Martin McDonagh.

Anyone agree? I'm skeptical myself. Then again, my favorite playwright is Tom Stoppard, so Mr. Pincus-Roth would probably say that I'm not part of the typical audience. (Plus, onstage violence done badly is just embarrassing to everyone, in a way that other theatrical shortcomings often aren't.)

Side note: this is only Slate's second piece under the "theater" heading since 2000. More site traffic may mean more articles! Theater everywhere!
Break a Leg

[slimandslam]

Posted: 5/3/06 at 2:44pm

Warning: the article contains spoilers. Lots of them.

(Also, I can't seem to edit my original post, which is why I'm using a separate post here.)

[peggyandvelma]

Posted: 5/3/06 at 2:51pm

Quote from the article: "For all the talk of attracting young people to the theater, producers have completely ignored the escapist thrills of action and horror that send kids flocking to the multiplex and turning on their TV sets."

True, but theatre costs much more to see. I don't think theatre needs more violence, but it is true that there are many plays and musicals where there is little to no violence. But we don't have to make Broadway a blood bath just to get teenagers to check it out. Sometimes theatre isn't for everyone.

[Danielm]

Posted: 5/3/06 at 2:58pm

I think it would be foolish to try to compete with movie gore. If the play calls for it and it's done well onstage violence can be quite effective--but for the violence in itself I doubt it will get people away from Silent Hill or the Saw movies.