Consider for a moment your conception of the sort of person who would typically watch a lot of television. Personally I would think of your typical television viewer as a very average sort of person: not overly intellectual, not on the cutting edge of topicality, lacking awareness of important contemporary issues like post-ethnicity and moral transcendentalism.
If you were forced to conjure an image of this person you would probably think of a single guy around his thirties who wears only shirts, from a clothing store whose demographic aim is quite clearly obnoxious teenage boys, with ambiguously malicious or crude slogans, is either slightly balding or covered in acne, not morbidly obese but could use a bit of exercise. Or perhaps your mind produces an image of a tired middle aged housewife who lives for The View and adores Oprah.
No-one wants to be perceived as fitting within the television watchers stereotype, there’s a couple of things people can do to avoid this. Sometimes they claim to watch only the non-commercial networks (In Australia ABC and SBS are the favoured choices, usually people engaging in this method of excusing/justifying their viewing habits will allude to obscure late night programming that they hope you haven’t seen or heard of) other times they claim to watch trashy reality (complete with dubious and mostly irrelevant allusion to dystopian literature by George Orwell) for their fill of ironic merrymaking and as a means of keeping the sardonic edge of their wit sharp by constantly refining it through sarcastic interjections throughout the programs.
However, the most effective method of shaking the television watchers stereotype is to go to the theatre; no not the cinema the theatre. You know where artistic people dressed in black skivvies act out fragmented plotlines documenting the fractured quality of the contemporary human condition (or something similarly inaccessibly arty).
If you somehow manage to mention to someone that fact that you regularly attend theatre they will instantly assume that your tastes in all areas are more refined than they are in actuality. Theatre here doesn’t mean mean smash hit musicals like Wicked or Mama Mia or rehashing of Andrew Lloyd webber classics (don’t get me wrong here those shows are great, Jesus Christ Superstar is seriously amazing, they just don’t earn artistic credibility as effectively as their less successful counterparts). It means fringe and alternative, shows by companies that have obscure titles that serve as a wry little joke that only the company director appreciates; though this doesn’t stop him from smiling an annoyingly quirky smile every time the name is mentioned.
This is why many people go to plays, it’s not because they like them, it’s because they’re trying to appear edgy and artistic. The people who produce live theatre know this so they create works that are increasingly unpalatable and obscure to feed people’s desire to disassociate from the mainstream.
If we’re honest we could all say that the first play we saw left us confused and dissatisfied. In retrospect we justify this sour aftertaste in terms of enigma and say things like ‘Oh Brechtian theatre is an acquired taste.’ When what we really mean is, ‘Until I got cluey and read a synopsis of the key themes of the play I was seeing before going to the show I was completely lost by what all the arty/intellectual people were going on about at interval.’ (I’m currently working on an article on how to impress people with intelligent half time discourse so stay tuned!)
So what can we take from this, I think we can safely say that a lot of people who go to plays either don’t like or don’t understand them.
Why do they go then? This is a question that has plagued me for years, I have gradually been developing a theory that explains people’s continued attendance at these self-indulgent exercises in fringe and independent theatre, beyond merely wanting to appear intellectual or artistic. I like to think of this peculiar phenomenon as similar to that which occurs in the fairy tale The Emperor’s New Clothes.
In this fairy tale the basic premise is that the king commissions a group of tailors to make him a fantastic set of clothes for his birthday. These men aren’t in fact tailors but conmen who set about to exploit the system by taking the exorbitant amounts of money designated for the purchase of material for the kings set of clothes and pocketing it. Rather than spending the money on material the employ various methods of persuasion and suggestion to create a paradigm of thought in which anyone who can’t see the kings clothing supposedly ‘lacks wisdom.’ In doing so they take away their responsibility to produce articles of fine clothing and instead rely on the assumption that no-one viewing the king’s clothes will be willing to concede lack of wisdom.
In the same way many independent theatrical companies have taken the responsibility of producing profound content and thrown it back in the face of the audience. Often, rather than a thoughtfully crafted theatrical journey that subtly and insightfully explores whatever issue the play happens to be dealing with, the audience is presented with an incoherent series of scenes with very little interconnectivity, or a convoluted allegory or super-metaphor that somehow attempts to allude to or represent every current topical issue imaginable but only actually manages to become a confusing puzzle where the audience is left with their minds aching like they’ve spent their evening simultaneously trying to solve difficult Sudoku and cryptic crosswords with beer goggles on and a siren blaring loudly in the background.
Just like with the king’s clothes no-one is willing to state bluntly that theatre of this sort is laughable, self-indulgent whimsical to the point of inaccessibility and pretentious in almost every way. So we get people going to plays even though they don’t like them because no-one is willing to point the finger and say ‘look at the king’s bare genitals.’
Personally I think the aforementioned television watchers stereotype is wrong, I think the average person who watches television is far more discerning than they’re often credited for. Many pieces of contemporary theatre would fail abysmally if they were ever translated into a television program they simply wouldn’t have the pace, the quality scripting or the relevance necessary to adequately interest and engross the notoriously click-happy television audience.
This sentiment is brilliantly surmised by a statement that one of my friends once whispered to me during a particularly pretentious performance (that if memory serves me correctly involved four people speaking internal monologues simultaneously in such a way that it was impossible to follow any one of the four the result of which was a strong desire for the show to be over) he said to me something along the lines of ‘This rubbish wouldn’t even make it onto ABC2 at three in the morning and we paid 45 bucks to get in here, we could watch Dylan Moran or Noel fielding on DVD at home for free.’
I’m not saying that all contemporary or non-naturalistic theatre is pretentious rubbish, in fact there’s a lot I really enjoy (shameless plug: if you ever get a chance to see Ying Tong a surrealist comedy documenting the mental breakdowns of Spike Milligan the writer of the goon show, see it you will never regret it and it might be the greatest piece of theatre you ever see I know it was for me), I’m just suggesting that perhaps we should collectively be a little more discerning and willing to recognise the kings nakedness and say at interval ‘this play is garbage, the acting is bad, the plot makes no sense why don’t we go home and watch the Fawlty Towers box set.’













