Sorry for the late reply- I'm studying for a final exam for wednesday which I know noth about (I took math by accident- thought it'd be easy.. but well. anyway.)
Wow- at least this thread has quite a few replies. I'm really glad.
It would also be nice to hear from the professionals/experienced about how to get employed after graduating...
will: I've been in your position- I've been the head electrician for a rather small black box production. It was some upper years' directing projects and they needed the lower year tech class kids to help and I got the chance to fiddle around with the board and all that. It was great working with the more experienced lighting designers and co. I really learnt a lot, especially the do & don'ts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answering an earlier question about what's theatre to me- or what is my ideal theatre like:
To me, theatre is a tool. A tool to express ideas and ideals of the playwright, director and to a certain extent designers and actor. And it is an effective tool if used properly because it's virtually man-to-man communication in contrast to television or radio, which is man-to-machine-to-man. Some might say there's a 'machine', the 'fourth wall' in theatres. In my theatre such thing should not exist. There are a few ways to achieve this. Generally either by staging or by style.
Apparently reducing the distance between 'the show' and the audience is the goal, and the solution by different staging methods is simple- so I won't try to explain the obvious and make a fool out of myself.
It's obvious that traditional prosenium or thrust theatres have a 4th wall. As I said, it can also be destroyed by style. Simply make the show a sledgehammer or an explosive and tear the 4th wall down is the other solution.
But how?
In spite of 'higher (as they say) intellegence' of humans, I still believe the mankind is afterall animals. We are merely beasts. Humans want all kinds of advantage in life- money, power, appeal. What do we actually want? The answer is the same for all kinds of animals and it is embedded in our brains. We do want to mate, to have a family (humans are social animals like chimps). It's the instinct. So the most effective method to communicate with mankind, in this case to the audience, is to talk to their primitive side in a primitive language that one understands by instinct.
The only way to communicate with the subconscious 'animalistic' side (I don't like this term because we are animals anyway) is to do it like an animal: take a wooden club, grab them by their hair, look them right in the eyes, tell them what you want to express and give them a good smack on their brains with each, every single word you say. Scenes should be brutal, explosive or dream like in order to touch the audience's subconscious instincts. They don't even have to be anything coherent. The existance of a clear storyline is not neccessary. The more unexpected (it's another topics about expectations. I might explain later on.), violent, obscene and surreal, the better the effect would be. Remember, we are not asking the audience to understand the story if it exists, not to understand the play. We are in a way nailing our ideas hard into their read-only memory. Or I should say, we are bringing it back to life. We are just opening the petrol can and making a spark in their heads. We want it direct, unexpected, strong and scary. Traumas make the deepest impression in people/animals' heads. I don't want a 30-minute applause after my productions. I want to leave the audiences speechless and leave the theatre quietly. Absolutely quietly. Enlightened, shocked, disgusteed, scared, amazed- whichever way they like. It all depends on how the audience are. I once said in a discussion, 'I hate it when people came up after [a certain play I wrote and directed] and asked what this and that means, blah blah blah. Well I don't care if they audience understand me and I won't bother to explain what my play means. I have done my job trying to tell what I wanted to tell. Some might see nothing, some might see even more, but who cares? It is amazing how they don't bother to be in touch with their inner(instinctive)-self but they actually bother to come up to such a weirdo like me and dare to ask what it meant.'
The use of language is also a problem. I admire Artaud's vision in that we need to find a new language of theatre. He saw that roughly 100 years ago. Ideally we invent a language. Brand new. Something that is so easy that one can understand what the actors are trying to say just by hearing the tone of the voice (plus the action and the set), yet so complicated that can deliver both (fragments of) stories and complex hidden meanings (that's the important thing) at the same time. I'm still in search of this. I have tried to invent a language in a part of a play I wrote but it was a total failure. I have tried to use merely screams and moans (that's the ideal) but I was not good enough to catch my thoughts fast enough and to represent to my actors- easy to think of, hard to represent. Thus in compromise, minimal verbal languages can be used when it is absolutely neccessary or when the development of the production's language is not progressing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you guys get the idea of how roughly my Theatre of Trauma is. I can try to go into a bit more detail but I doubt if I would be able to access the internet when reply comes (I'll be away from roughly the 9th dec to 8th jan). I'll try my best since I value people's opinions and comments. It will help me develop a much clearer idea.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what the hell? We have the audience pay to watch us and instead we smack them on their heads?
As Heiner Müller said, directors and actors are scared of silence. It's one form of expectation- people play to see the performers perform, not to be silent. Here it develops into two discussions: expectations and adapting to expectations, but somehow it comes down similar: nowadays the majority of audience expect to see something entertaining and does not require much thinking. They want entertainment and thus theatre-makers 'create' such productions. I do see the value in them as I said, but I think theatre is just more than this. Why should we do what the others expect us to do? Why? Did we sign a contract when they buy a ticket saying 'we will play what you want us to play (like the Players in (damn)Hamlet)'? No we f---ing did NOT!
Aye- I have lost track of my ideas. It flows faster than I type. Scheiße... I'll try to explain the expectation thing- I'll try. Do expect me to.
*Thanks for make it to the end of this long and maybe nonsense post*
*Hugs*