What do you think?
Rate this book
Theatre and the City
How can an understanding of theatre in the city help us make sense of urban social experience?
Theatre& the City explores how relationships between theatre, performance and the city affect social power dynamics, ideologies and people's sense of identity. The book evaluates both material conditions (such as architecture) and performative practices (such as urban activism) to argue that both these categories contribute to the complex economies and ecologies of theatre and performance in an increasingly urbanised world. Foreword by Tim Etchells.
Theatre& the City explores how relationships between theatre, performance and the city affect social power dynamics, ideologies and people's sense of identity. The book evaluates both material conditions (such as architecture) and performative practices (such as urban activism) to argue that both these categories contribute to the complex economies and ecologies of theatre and performance in an increasingly urbanised world. Foreword by Tim Etchells.
87 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
3 people are currently reading
40 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
February 20, 2018
Live Exile: An assay
This is a bullshit book,
is what I was going to write when I began this booklet. It’s like 78 pages, it starts with a bad poem, and a few pages in the boos asks (for the only time)
Why does the relationship between the city and theater matter?
And I’m thinking, “Can’t you construct a line of thought without asking yourself a question?” (my thoughts, I do speak aloud; I’m keeping the TV on ALL DAY)
But it’s not a bullshit book, in fact, it brings up some important questions.
It’s stuff I thought about as a filmmaker. I thought: a film is as good as its location. But further, that the very places films are filmed (high production stuff) have to be as opulent as the field of the cloth of gold and therefore unethical. It can be summed up in a Walt Banj statement I hope not to paraphrase too bad “I can’t look at a goddamn thing without it being a document of barbarism.”
Ie, the Art center on Cap Hill (gonna use my backyard of Seattle here) is part of the problem. It gives gentrification of the neighborhood a +10. As to the monument theaters, (Paramount, 5th Ave, ACT, the big theaters) really just catering to the upper crust with some pretty base stuff. That’s why ACT has to do Christmas Carol every year, it doesn’t really have a choice in the matter.
And fringe theater, let me tell you: and this is a non-sequitur: it’s, it’s, they’re, they’re not outsiders, or, or, using their anonymity to peruse the offbeat. They’re normal people. They watch internet tv and drink away their spare time. (Harsh, sure, but I don’t think anyone in Seattle fringe will read this. They’re not readers. Just like literary people aren’t theatergoers) Only screwballs like me traverse the different circles, and when I arrive, I spread wicked rumors.
The author uses cultural materialism to portray the divides that fault line through our society. The theorists that get the most action in this 78-page page-turner are Deborah and Lefebvre. I like Lefebvre myself, he popped up in my film noir studies. And what was the great loss for Lef—for Modernity itself, was the loss of the streets. “Instead of submission” I quote, “to capitalist labor segregation of individuals and its invitation to see ourselves as isolated individuals and/or family unites Lefebvre advocated an understanding of society as a civic community with collective powers. He also advocated creativity and play in face of work.” A vein of copper ore for sure. Which is why it is sublimated for the author answer.
The author thinks the theater should just leave to the building. So-n-so (Jen Harvie is the name) turns to what Peter Brook in The Empty Space calls Rough Theater. Rough Theater is theater of the basement and attic, the café and club. Performance art is our answer. Not only is theater in the street with Baudelaire, and Lef, and misfits and all things cultural theory adores, but it’s free of its obligation as a space renter. It’s ecologically friendlier (Yeah I’m not too keen on theater being ecologically friendly. I think a lot of other things can go green first before we ask the theater to.) It is no longer hobbled by impossible economic constraints.
My doleful lament is that it’s too bad that theater loses two of its main weapons: sets and lights. Theater is pretty magical, but if you take away the protective bubble of the footlights, the house lights going to black, theater will have a hard time fending for itself. That’s why we called Rough.
But hey, that’s exile I guess. Maybe we’ll all learn some lessons when theaters’ finally let indoors again. If it happens, so be it. I’ll be there as an audience member, damn it!
Fuck the theater! Long live Rough Theatre!
This is a bullshit book,
is what I was going to write when I began this booklet. It’s like 78 pages, it starts with a bad poem, and a few pages in the boos asks (for the only time)
Why does the relationship between the city and theater matter?
And I’m thinking, “Can’t you construct a line of thought without asking yourself a question?” (my thoughts, I do speak aloud; I’m keeping the TV on ALL DAY)
But it’s not a bullshit book, in fact, it brings up some important questions.
It’s stuff I thought about as a filmmaker. I thought: a film is as good as its location. But further, that the very places films are filmed (high production stuff) have to be as opulent as the field of the cloth of gold and therefore unethical. It can be summed up in a Walt Banj statement I hope not to paraphrase too bad “I can’t look at a goddamn thing without it being a document of barbarism.”
Ie, the Art center on Cap Hill (gonna use my backyard of Seattle here) is part of the problem. It gives gentrification of the neighborhood a +10. As to the monument theaters, (Paramount, 5th Ave, ACT, the big theaters) really just catering to the upper crust with some pretty base stuff. That’s why ACT has to do Christmas Carol every year, it doesn’t really have a choice in the matter.
And fringe theater, let me tell you: and this is a non-sequitur: it’s, it’s, they’re, they’re not outsiders, or, or, using their anonymity to peruse the offbeat. They’re normal people. They watch internet tv and drink away their spare time. (Harsh, sure, but I don’t think anyone in Seattle fringe will read this. They’re not readers. Just like literary people aren’t theatergoers) Only screwballs like me traverse the different circles, and when I arrive, I spread wicked rumors.
The author uses cultural materialism to portray the divides that fault line through our society. The theorists that get the most action in this 78-page page-turner are Deborah and Lefebvre. I like Lefebvre myself, he popped up in my film noir studies. And what was the great loss for Lef—for Modernity itself, was the loss of the streets. “Instead of submission” I quote, “to capitalist labor segregation of individuals and its invitation to see ourselves as isolated individuals and/or family unites Lefebvre advocated an understanding of society as a civic community with collective powers. He also advocated creativity and play in face of work.” A vein of copper ore for sure. Which is why it is sublimated for the author answer.
The author thinks the theater should just leave to the building. So-n-so (Jen Harvie is the name) turns to what Peter Brook in The Empty Space calls Rough Theater. Rough Theater is theater of the basement and attic, the café and club. Performance art is our answer. Not only is theater in the street with Baudelaire, and Lef, and misfits and all things cultural theory adores, but it’s free of its obligation as a space renter. It’s ecologically friendlier (Yeah I’m not too keen on theater being ecologically friendly. I think a lot of other things can go green first before we ask the theater to.) It is no longer hobbled by impossible economic constraints.
My doleful lament is that it’s too bad that theater loses two of its main weapons: sets and lights. Theater is pretty magical, but if you take away the protective bubble of the footlights, the house lights going to black, theater will have a hard time fending for itself. That’s why we called Rough.
But hey, that’s exile I guess. Maybe we’ll all learn some lessons when theaters’ finally let indoors again. If it happens, so be it. I’ll be there as an audience member, damn it!
Fuck the theater! Long live Rough Theatre!
April 9, 2020
I did not sign up for bias and aggressive pursuit of a personal political agenda in what is supposedly an academic piece of writing. Tried to talk a bit about everything only to achieve nothing.
December 26, 2018
A useful introduction to critical thinking about theatre spaces and performance in urban areas. It tackles “cultural materialism”, which analyses how the production process, architecture and other external factors affect the theatre being staged and its meaning. It also looks at performativity - how performance of different kinds can disrupt dominant “hegemonic” spaces. It also briefly looks at depictions of the city throughout the history of drama.
December 11, 2024
Very interesting commentary on activism in theatre! Art is political 😌
December 15, 2015
A pretty good read! I felt like the book was well-written and organized, so that even though I'm not a theatre expert, I could understand most (definitely not all, but most) of what I was reading. Personally, I would have appreciated examples from more performances, but I can understand it was meant to be a shorter read.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews