the empty space

Authors Avatar

The Empty Space, By Peter Brook.

Having read The Empty Space by Peter Brook. I will be discussing all that I have learnt about the different form of theatre he discusses. He tries to categories theatre into four different types of theatre. These categories are; The Deadly Theatre, The Holy Theatre, The Rough Theatre and finally, The Immediate Theatre.  The first category I shall be discussing is The Deadly Theatre.

Firstly The Deadly Theatre, this is the form of theatre we see most often. As theatre audience are falling around the world and this is because it fails to entertain. However the author does appreciate that occasionally there are new movements with good writers. The author goes on to compare theatre as a whore. He believes that its art is dirty and robs your money and doesn’t deliver the entertainment required to warrant an expensive admittance. Mr Brooks makes the statement that there is no true theatre joy as The Deadly Theatre is not only found in the commercial West End or Broadway but also is making its way into Opera and even Shakespeare. This is because Brooks makes the very true statement that even though universally we find these Shakespearean productions marvellous to look at with their grand sets, costumes and are drawn to the theatre because a popular actor maybe in it. However if we were to sit through the production the majority would be truly bored as it isn’t anything different from previous Shakespeare production of the same play or different plays. He goes on to say that is what people associate with as culture and the culture of British Theatre. Therefore we as an audience are attracted to dull boring plays. Brooks goes on to say that audiences go to theatre to discover something that is better than life and as they most commonly see theatre that goes against this notion sadly they have been cheated. Furthermore Brooks goes on to describe two ways a classic can be performed. Firstly grand productions, where the actors are noble looking, use a special voice and manner. The other is a halfhearted attempt of something which really could be a lot better should they have developed the ideas further. This attempt wants to show the audience a more realistic out look on the story. The script is in limbo as it has been updated but the original classic has resisted the changes and the new script is really understandably. Therefore the actor doesn’t truly understand what he is saying and therefore his performance is weak. Brooks goers on to make the very interesting statement that “printed words can tell us what was written on paper. But not how it was once brought to life” this is up to the actor and if he/she doesn’t understand what is written they therefore cant bring it to life.

Brooks goes on to discuss Shakespeare further and says the most common piece of advice giving to actors performing Shakespeare is “Play what is written” however words are words that is simple nothing more nothing less. The words aren’t been performed nor is it the way we say them in a grand voice but it is the expression used to say them. Anyone could speak Received Pronunciation and recite Shakespeare and this is what we often see. Brooks goes on to say that people are concerned with “nailing” down the meaning of the word and getting sidetrack with stage directions rather than focusing on the script as really that is all that is needed. Sadly in these plays we label character with archetypes and what we get is over the top pantomime.

Join now!

Brooks goes on to say that when he hears a director letting a play speak itself he says he is concerned as this is the hardest thing to do. Because if you want a play to speak, it may not make a sound so therefore is you want a play to be heard you also have to make sound conjure from it. This needs deliberate actions and expressions from the actors. It needs to be simple however if you make a play simple you could be quite negative and give the audience simple answers.

The next notion I shall be ...

This is a preview of the whole essay