RENT and the AIDS movement- Page 3

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/2/12 at 6:00pm

"When we talk about ANY theater changing the world (at least in the U.S.), we're already deluding ourselves."

Then I don't think you have an understanding of how change happens in the world. A one degree deviation from a ship's charted course results in a major change of direction in a very short time. There are people making theatre all over the US that has an impact on citizen viewers. I wouldn't underestimate that unless I were a cynic.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/2/12 at 6:13pm

Theatre is not a dying art form.

Dying implies it is fading away, which I cannot think one can argue to be true.

Kad, by that standard, kabuki is a contemporary art form. They still perform it in Japan and even have kabuki stars who are much loved by the medium's small audience.

I taught theater to college students for 15 years. The ones who went to Broadway were the ones who couldn't get TV pilots. That's what I mean by "dying". Sure, they had fun doing small productions while they were undergraduates, but they knew what the future held in store.

Live American theater may be slightly more popular than opera or kabuki, but they are basically all "museum" art forms. With very few exceptions, almost nobody goes regularly. (ETA and BTW, no less an expert than Manny Azenburg himself pointed this out to me 35 years ago!)

***

Namo, are you telling me that when a butterfly flaps its wings in Louisiana, a hurricane forms off the coast of Africa?

I'm not saying live theater should be banned, just that we ought to keep its influence in perspective. The original question here was whether RENT changed the course of the AIDS epidemic. I will argue RENT had less impact than one Tom Hanks movie, PHILADELPHIA, a film so boring (Academy Awards notwithstanding) that none of us has seen it in years. RENT had less influence than Act-Up members throwing fake blood at St. Patrick's; at least people in the general culture (and by "people", I mean Camille Paglia) were talking about that!

Updated On: 7/2/12 at 06:13 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 7/2/12 at 6:16pm

I'm sorry, your view is just way too cynical and pessimistic to really even argue against.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/2/12 at 6:19pm

"The original question here was whether RENT changed the course of the AIDS epidemic."

Not to split hairs with an almost rabbinical level of exactitude, but the original post asked if RENT gave a voice to the AIDS movement, wondering if it was actually too late in the history of the epidemic.

You focused your answer on a question that was not asked.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/2/12 at 6:26pm

Okay, all that being said, I should "confess" that there are exceptions, even among large-scale productions. (I would say "allow" instead of confess, but After Eight will get his panties in such a bunch they'll have to surgically removed his testicles from his anus.)

The recent revival of FOLLIES in L.A. reminded me that even large-scale theater can still, on rare occasions, be an actual exchange between cast and audience. It was amped, of course, but, with one exception, subtly so. More important, the set served the play rather than the play serving the set. (And--just imagine!--live human beings actually moved a few pieces of furniture.)

And as the evening progressed, the warmth and enthusiasm of L.A. audiences had a palpable effect on the cast. Now the principals were all professionals and would have done their jobs to an empty house, I'm sure. But in meeting the passion of the spectators, the cast members were so jazzed that by time of the curtain calls (I saw it twice) they were jumping in place with excitement.

Now THAT is magic. But I find it very rare outside of 99-seat theaters with loyal followings.

More common, in my experience, was LES MISERABLES, even 25 years ago. The music started, the turntables began to spin and it was quickly clear that someone had pushed the button and the show would spin to its inevitable conclusion, 3 hours later.

Now I still love the album and the show I see in my head. But what I saw on stage at the Schubert in L.A. (from great seats, FWIW) would have kept spinning whether I laughed or didn't laugh, applauded or didn't applaud, kept my seat or went to the bar, or even, yes, checked my cell phone (if they had been invented back then).

I think that's far more common than my FOLLIES' experience and I think it's fair to ask just how "live" that was?

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/2/12 at 6:35pm

I'm sorry, your view is just way too cynical and pessimistic to really even argue against.

For the record, that's exactly what I thought when Manny Azenburg proposed the same thesis to me in 1977.

But now that time has proved Manny both right and wrong in different ways, I don't think it's cynical or pessimistic to take off our rose-colored glasses, Kad. You love the theater and you still go; so do I. That can be good enough and it really will have to be. Because it certainly doesn't change the fact that most of America (at least under the age of 50) would rather be playing video games.

Now which group do you think will shape the future? Those of us over 50 or those who are under?

***

If we must be rabbinical, Namo, "giving voice to" something would also be "to change" it. Either way you phrase it, my point remains: live theater doesn't have the cultural impact of MSNBC, much less Fox News.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/2/12 at 6:37pm

Yes, the mega-musicals gave one that impression. But I think you'd have to willfully only focus on them to be able to support your general thesis to the logical conclusion that theater is dead and never changes anything.

To think of one recent example, the Tectonic troup went back to Laramie, Wyoming to see how things had changed ten years after the Matthew Shepherd murder. I happened to see the world premiere of their follow-up to The Laramie Project (which documented the immediate aftermath of the murder and the attention it brought to Wyoming) and it was a deeply moving documentation of how things changed or stayed the same over the next decade.

I think both of those pieces had the effect of laying out what theater AND activism can change. And probably inspired more change.


PS Your point that your answer to the wrong question is the same as if it were to the actual question is not well taken.

Updated On: 7/2/12 at 06:37 PM

[Bwaydide92]

Posted: 7/2/12 at 6:50pm

Gaveston, I agree with you on the fact that too much of big theatre is so automated and disconnected with the audience that it's really discouraging. Nowadays people are putting in moments where they think laughter or applause should be. They anticipate audience reaction so much that it's a choreographed part of the show. This isn't how theatre should work. You hardly see show stopping numbers nowadays. Just imagine how great it would be to go to a show and have the audience appreciate it so much that they add an extra minute to the show (now this only happens when a star leaves or a celebrity appears). It used to be that the story and the performances would move an audience to have such a reaction. Audiences are a lot more passive and I think it's the fault of both the audience and the production. I saw War Horse at The Ahmanson last week and there was a moment where we as an audience were really enjoying the show (I think it was the goose doing a funny bit) and a large portion of the audience was clapping and laughing, but a new scene started anyway. The actor started saying his line and I missed the whole first half of it. We weren't to the point of stopping the show, but a slight pause would have been nice.

At the same performance another actor actually did wait for us after a moment of applause. He was very connected to the audience and realised we needed a moment before he should continue. The first actor just trucked along, but the second let the audience participate a little. It was very refreshing.

Musicals are even worse when it comes to ignoring the audience. There are always pauses after songs so the audience feels obligated to applaud. When I saw AMERICAN IDIOT, the audience really liked it, but our curtain call applause hardly constituted the encore song, but they already had the guitars set in the wings (I could easily see them) and went a long anyway. They had no real regard for the audience.

Even with all of that said. I still believe in the magic of theatre. We don't always see it nowadays, but there are still genuine artists out there. But most of Broadway is commercial and goes for the wow factor. I think a few more non-profits on Broadway would really change the direction the art form is going in.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/2/12 at 6:59pm

Oh man, this echo chamber is really something.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/2/12 at 7:02pm

THE LARAMIE PROJECT is a great counter-example. It's an exception, I think, but no less important for that. But it was also seen by far more people on TV than in the theater. (But would it have ever made it to TV without the original theater project? No way to know for sure.)

Namo, I have allowed for a number of exceptions during this conversation, but they have tended to get lost since several conversations have been going at once.

I'm well aware that most large cities have one or more small gay theaters that serve an important function as social spaces where the community can assemble and (in Luis Valdez' words) see its feelings expressed. Here in the Southwest, at least, there are Latino groups that serve the same function.

And I don't doubt that RENT served the same purpose for some teens in the mid 1990s.

My points were twofold:

1. We should be careful about making extraordinary claims for live theater's influence on the culture at large. (Did RENT "give the AIDS movement a voice"? No.)

2. We should be careful about making extraordinary claims for the benefit of live theater, when our culture's most-often attended form of theater gets less "live" with every passing season.



Updated On: 7/2/12 at 07:02 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/2/12 at 7:07pm

Oh man, this echo chamber is really something.

Aw, come on, dude! I haven't taken enough crap in this thread to merit one supporter (who is only agreeing with part of what I said anyway)?

Thanks for chiming in, Bwaydide92, and saying what I meant better than I did.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/2/12 at 7:11pm

The person was ASKING if it gave the AIDS movement a voice or if it came along too late.

You chose to focus on big bloated commercial Broadway behemoths to point out that theatre is dead and that it can go on whether or not there are actual living performers involved, which is just a hyperbolic overstatement. You didn't answer the question asked, and you then created a false dichotomy to illustrate that the art form is dead.

Fact is, after EVERYTHING goes to crap, when there's no more electricity and big cities or power to boot up a video game, there will always be people standing up and performing Shakespeare. There will always be theatre.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/2/12 at 7:36pm

Here was the original question, Namo:

How important was RENT in giving the AIDS movement a 'voice'?

You are correct that at some point, I converted that to "did RENT change the AIDS movement?", but I still maintain that "giving something a voice" is in fact to "change" it. I don't know what your beef is, but I am now taking pains to use the OP's actual language.

My response to the OP was that theater matters very little in terms of influencing modern culture. It simply isn't the art form of the moment any longer. (Your imagined future without electrical power may indeed come to pass. Paper may also be in short supply. Should those things occur, I would not be surprised to see a resurgence in the importance of theater. But in the meantime...)

In response to my statement that "theater doesn't really matter" (meaning to the culture at large), I got several romantic posts about the power and wonder of "live" theater. TO THAT, I responded that the theater most people see isn't really very "live". I stand by that assertion.

So, yes, it became a two-pronged discussion and no doubt I could have been clearer in some posts as to which prong I was discussing. But in fairness, I was responding to what others had posted.

IN SUMMARY, I DID ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED (even if I mis-quoted it after two days and several pages). I THEN PROCEEDED TO RESPOND TO OTHER COMMENTS.

My positions on both points remain the same, with exceptions noted.

BTW and FWIW, dude! You are SOOOO shooting the messenger on this one!

Updated On: 7/2/12 at 07:36 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/2/12 at 7:49pm

I understand what a challenge short term memory can sometimes be, but that's the beauty of scrolling back a little bit. You did not change the discussion to "did RENT change the AIDS movement" you changed it to, and I quote:

"The original question here was whether RENT changed the course of the AIDS epidemic."

You see how that takes a notional relationship to the original question proposed but blows it up to a level of preposterousness that just so happens to illustrate your other point handily? Theater can't change the world, ergo it's not as important as any of you optimistic dreamers with your turntables would like to believe!!

I'll tell you this, the AIDS activist movement, which succeeded in large part because of its incredibly *theatrical* direct actions, did in fact change the course of the AIDS epidemic in the United States and later, the world. The original question, not your reinterpretation of it, asked if RENT came along too late to give a voice to that movement. Yes it did. It was a movement that had its own distinctive voices. RENT echoed that a few years later. And it may have given a sense of the history of the epidemic to lots of people who otherwise were not affected by it.

And THIS, my friend, is what I mean about you not seeming to grasp how change happens in the real world.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/2/12 at 8:21pm

Namo, you are absolutely correct that the theatrical tactics of Act-Up and Queer Nation changed the course of the epidemic by drawing attention to the need for funding and other forms of support. No argument from me whatsoever. So if THAT is what you mean by "theater matters", then I agree. But you are the first to approach the issue from that standpoint.

How many times do I have to admit that, before you corrected me, I mis-worded the OP's original question? It was an accident and no great plan to secretly shift the debate to my favor. (And I still don't think the difference is as great as you want to insist. If "giving the movement a voice" (which RENT did not) wouldn't have changed the course of the epidemic, then why were we discussing it in the first place?)

Nonetheless, you have corrected me and I have graciously conceded the point. Again and again and now again. What the hell do you want?!

IT WAS NOT I who started this discussion on grandiose terms, so accusing me of inflating the argument to "preposterousness" for underhanded rhetorical purposes is distinctly unfair. Had we started with your argument that even the smallest communication may lead to unforeseen change, I would have agreed and left it at that.

But the OP started with far broader terms than I have used: "Did RENT give the AIDS movement a voice?" I don't want to pick on the OP, but we who love theater have a tendency to sit around telling one another how important it is and how it is essential to bringing needed change to the world. I think we're kidding ourselves.

I happen to also think we are kidding ourselves that the popular mega-musicals really have much to do with the supposed "magic" of live theater. I think they are more akin to theme-park attractions (which isn't to say I haven't enjoyed some of them).

You're entitled to disagree on either or both counts. And I'm entitled to find you a tad sentimental.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/2/12 at 9:16pm

Of course you realize this means war.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/2/12 at 9:27pm

Of course you realize this means war.

Rather than go to war with you, Namo, I will simply surrender here and now. I suppose I'm the sentimental one, after all.

:white flag:

But if you read back a page, I think you'll find me agreeing with you more often than not.

The issues have been significantly restated, thanks in no small part to your correction of my mis-quoting the OP.

Updated On: 7/2/12 at 09:27 PM

[After Eight]

Posted: 7/2/12 at 9:54pm

You-know-who,

Your vulgarity is appalling, in both thought and word.

You need to read Emily Post.

Several times over.

[Kad]

Posted: 7/2/12 at 10:01pm

Isn't he darling with all that insight.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/2/12 at 10:51pm

To quote another theater piece that didn't give voice to a movement but reflected one and contributed to a seismic shift in the world: "Who is she? Who was she? Who does she hope to be?"

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 7/2/12 at 11:35pm

See, but when you compare Follies to Les Mis, you act as if the show of Follies wouldn't have progressed without the love coming back from the audience. But guess what- it still would have, and I would assure you that the revival of Follies was likely just as technical and computerized as Les Mis. Just because that particular audience of Follies was especially connected with the performance doesn't make it any more live or valid than a production of Les Mis. It's still performers actually acting in front of you, which is absolutely live.

Let me give another example. At the current moment, I'm working on a production of HMS Pinafore. Our production is completely acoustic, with every member of the company and orchestra working without amplification. In addition, our show has a unit set and thus requires very little computerization to make the show run beyond the lights. This past weekend, I saw a production of Hairspray- an amplified, computerized show. And despite the mics and the fancy technology, there was still a palpable energy in the room because the experience was still live and happening right before our eyes. The production of Pinafore I'm working on is no more valid than this production of Hairspray just because we're a more low-tech show. If it's live theatre, there's always something new happening, something that can't be recreated, something that could go wrong. And you can throw millions of dollars and computer programs into a show, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it is fundamentally live and not at all like a film, as you suggested.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/2/12 at 11:38pm

Excellent examples, in my opinion.

[Bwaydide92]

Posted: 7/3/12 at 12:23am

It's not the computerisation that removes the "live" part of the event. It's the disconnect with the audience that is becoming more and more prominent in commercial theatre today. It's when the show ignores or insist on a audience response. That's something that happens a lot in film. I'm sure most people have had those moments where they're laughing at a joke and then the dialogue continues and you miss part of it. That's because it's a pre-recorded performance and the actor has no way of knowing what an audience will find funny at all times. That can be avoided in theatre. More and more often shows just go from cue to cue like a roller coaster with no regard for the passengers. Of course it's not all shows, but the ones that really stay with an audience don't truck through the script, they allow the audience to actively participate. That's the real "live" factor. The audience should be alive and active in performance. At a movie the performance is going to be the same not matter who is in the audience, even if there is no audience. An acting teacher of mine always said that the audience is the most important scene partner. Unfortunately, many commercial shows don't listen to this scene partner. I think that's more what Gaveston meant by it not being "live" anymore, not literally that there were no longer live elements to the shows.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 7/3/12 at 12:36am

Well, thank you Namo!

And I think it's simply romanticizing the past to say that theatre prior to today didn't insist on an audience reaction- I mean, I'm sure someone like Ethel Merman, wonderful performer though I'm sure she was, certainly had several joke lines in her shows that she expected a laugh on. Hell, Merman was known as Miss Birdseye, because when she played a part, it stayed exactly the same, and yet no one would accuse her performances of being any less live. All theatre pieces and actors do that, and they have since theatre began. Of course certain reactions are insisted upon. And in regards to ignoring the audience, it doesn't necessarily say anything about the state of live theatre today if an actor keeps going after a laugh. Maybe they didn't expect a laugh there, or maybe they are just a poor actor who isn't in tune with the audience. But I still don't think that necessarily means that theatre today is less live because of it.

And in regards to the original question of Rent, I do think the show did have some sort of an impact. I mean, I don't think it changed the world or is even a particularly well-written show overall. But I have to add my voice to the chorus of people who were first educated about AIDS through this show. I wasn't even alive when the AIDS crisis began, in fact I was only a few years old when Rent opened. But I still had no idea what AIDS was, and I certainly think this show educated a generation of young people who otherwise probably didn't have any idea about the AIDS crisis. So though it certainly didn't change the world, it still did have a wide-spread impact that other pieces like The Normal Heart or Angels in America didn't, simply because of the widespread popularity of the show.

Updated On: 7/3/12 at 12:36 AM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/3/12 at 12:48am

You're right about the simple romanticizing going on.

"But I have to add my voice to the chorus of people who were first educated about AIDS through this show."

If we take this point of yours and go back to my post about how change actually happens in the world (through small individual changes), well, it actually shows that RENT changed the world.