The Maltese Falcon!

In my class, we have recently been putting togather a show called The Maltese Falcon, based upon the Humphry Bogart film of the same name. From the show, we wanted to explore the conncections to be made between film and theatre, and highlight what is simular and yet, different about the two forms. Debating Katie Mitchell’s statement that stage can be transformed into film, but not vice versa.

We decided to base our piece on the film noir style that the original film material holds, with black and white, clever use of shadows and lighting and an array of different camera angles. The piece intended to achieve this comparison by switching between live theatre and live film throughout the piece between various scenes.

In declairing the mechanics, by putting the filming process and eqipment on full display, the piece was fully acknowledging the roots of its original context. By parodying the style of film noir, through the strict seriousness of the process it takes to produce it, we developed a level of respect between the two art forms, rather than producing a biased piece of work, tilted towards the preference of theatre.

We came across a few problems throughout the rehearsal process, such as the problems that unreliable technology had to offer, as the show was heavily dependant upon technology such as camera equipment and a number of lights positioned on stage. Wires were an issue, as they needed to be moved around the stage at great speeds at the same time as the performers. All of this was a potential risk in the show and was perhaps unavoidable even in the final shows themselves. Yet, no problems occured to a major extent.

My character, “Brett Faulkner”, was a character that occured between scene intervals, as a device used to allow time for the film to theatre changes to happen. With “Brett” I wanted to show a stylistic and physical performance, and I intended to incorperate much of what I had spent weeks learning in lessons prior such as clocking and rhythm.  My character was one that refered to the audience directly which is something I have little done before, and while it was perhaps nerve racking, I found it was important to just go for it. Luckily I had a responsive audience in the final piece and was therefore very thankful. It has occured to me that audiences differ, and it is important to bare this in mind when dealing with audiences, and to perhaps make decisions based on the type of audience you may have prior.

From doing the show I feel I have gained a clearer knowlege of what theatre is, in contrast to film. Both are compleatly different and it was greatly interesting to examine the connections between the two.  I am pleased also that my character was away from anything I had done before, allowing me to take a risk and explore new boundaried. As an ensemble, we all needed to help one another with getting from places to other places and getting the best out of the performance which I think was effectivly done. Audience feedback from the show was positive and well opinionated which is a pleasing result.

What is Live Art?

Some question whether theatre is the same as “Live Art”. Live art can claim perhaps to be a number of things, but theatre and live art seem to differ.

For one, while a theatrical piece may have a set structure or end goal, live art seems to be a lot more ambiguous.  Often live art gives the audience their own choice to interpret what they see, whereas theatre may be more motivated in what it intends to achive in the audiences mind.

Also, a difference could be to do with how the two art forms are conncected to the true World in which we live in. Marina Abramovic stated, “To be a performance artist, you have to hate theatre.”… “Theatre is fake… The knife is not real, the blood is not real, and the emotions are not real. Performance art is just the opposite: the knife is real, the blood is real, and the emotions are real.” This idea suggesting that theatre is crafted out of make-believe devices, whereas performance art is crafted out of all that is real. Furthermore, that when we go to see theatre we may have to use our suspension of disbelief, which we may not have to use when viewing live art.

Next, a piece of theatre may arguably be seen as to want to entertain, or at least achive some sort of response emotionally from the audience. Theatre may also use other defined entertainment forms in its own form, such as dance or music in order to achieve this. Whereas, live art is different in that it is perhaps less intent of entertaining or achiving any sort of emotional response. But instead, aims to achieve only what it does in the audiences mind.

While theatre and “live art” may differ, they also have very close simularities, and it can be difficult to tell one appart from the other in a few cases.  This I feel leads to the miss-use of the term “theatre” and “live art” in wider society on occasions. I am sure that someone who had not been exposed to the somewhat sheltered term “live art” before, may see a piece of live art and call it “theatre”, as the term “theatre” is a more popularised and better known term.