Fast Food Theatre

This is turning out to be quite the cerebral multiple-post day for me.

My comrade playwright and classmate, Adam Szymkowicz posted on his blog a letter from playwright Larry Kunofsky about the current state of playwriting.

I have to say that while Larry makes me feel good about my choice to pursue my MFA, I have to disagree with what he says about playwriting today.

While the current crop of plays coming out may be written by serious-minded playwrights, the plays themselves seem to suggest that at the forefront of their mind is "fast food theatre," which is easy to digest, and completely unforgettable afterwards.

Theatre is definitely doing well, but it seems that the people behind it are taking their cues from Hollywood and packing 'em in with celebrities and/or simplistic themes that don't challenge you. Most things of merit tend to be revivals or re-envisionings of classic work. The new crop of work is based on pop culture. Having pop culture as a subject matter is not of itself a bad thing, but it must be used as a vehicle to explain something deeper, not to just merely say "hey, I like this, don't you?" It's theatre as a celebration of conformity.

Take for example The One-Man Star Wars Trilogy. It is exactly what it says it is, one man performs the Star Wars Trilogy. It is lauded by many ostensibly for the performance of Charles Ross (who wrote and performs it--not always a good idea), but what I feel they are really applauding is seeing one media in another. It's nothing more than that. Think of the successful film-to-television series transfers, for every M*A*S*H and The Odd Couple, there is a My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Party Girl, and a 9 to 5. It's just the novelty.

Theatre today is obsessed with the familar, and in this day and age of 15 minute fame, pop icons are born practically at the speed of sound. The man who did the superficial, but stylish Paris Hilton one-man show, is now directing Fatal Attraction: A Greek Tragedy (Not!), which features Corey Feldman in its cast in order to maximise the 1980's references. It's not camp, it's just tacky and self-referential. I'm pretty certain Charles Busch would agree with me on this.

Then there's Orgasms: The Play, which brings out the ancient battle of the sexes cliche and adds nothing to it. That's just evident by the title. Let's just talk about sex, but make it superficial and funny, because no one wants to actually sit through a production that talks about genuine feelings and genuine sexuality.

Joy (as in The Joy of Gay Sex) purports to do that, but ultimately fails because again, the interest is solely in sex, laughs, and colourful characters. You forget about it afterwards, because it's just another gay romantic comedy, a creature that is needed more in film and less onstage.

Now in theatre as opposed to film, the writer has a lot of control, so we can't say that these were great works that became homogenised by the evil producers. The fact of the matter is that these plays were the works that the writers have chosen to meet the world. They are their beasts that shout "I," and their "I" is life unexamined.

I am not saying that there isn't a place for camp and froth in theatre. Quite the opposite, we need to laugh at the outlandish foibles of others much as we need to be able to laugh at ourselves. What I am saying, however, is that something is terribly wrong with the state of playwriting today if the majority of work being done and seen by the public is froth that assumes that people don't want to think. We don't have to be restrained from slitting our wrists at the end, but we do want to feel like we had a genuine live experience.

Otherwise, we'd just sit at home, watch E!, and giggle at Benny Hill reruns.