Theatre as Art or Entertainment? — Page 2

Well, I agree with you about the (fairly) objective problems, because those are, unlike the different ending, not commercially driven. They're just things that suck. Things like lightening the plot and making the ending happier are all about pleasing audiences and creating something that'll sell because it's pretty feel-good.

---

Like sex and passion. If it's not both, you're doing it wrong.

---

What is the definition of entertainment? To me, entertainment is not just the happy, feel-good, fluffy shows/films/books. I enjoy the happy fluff, but I also enjoy things that are darker. So does something need to be happy fluff to qualify as entertainment? Or does entertainment just mean something that is enjoyable or desirable to watch, for whatever reason? If that is the case (which I think it is), then "entertainment" is just as difficult to define as "art." I think there can be as many different types of entertainment as there are audience members to consume it; what I find entertaining may not be entertaining to the person sitting next to me.

"If art isn't entertainment, what is it? Punishment?"

--Pauline Kael

---

I think just like the movie industry there is room for the light fluffy purely entertainment musicals/plays as well as the deep meanifully artisitically driven musicals/plays. Without the light and fluffy (movies, musicals, plays, books, etc etc)that bring in the masses the artistic could not get produced.

---

I think it's both. It's art for the performer and entertainment for the audience.