Theatre: Entertainment or Education?

[ahhrealmonsters]

I'm taking a class that focuses on 18th century theatre, and the question that always arises (as it related to the Enlightenment period): Does theatre education or entertain? Does theatre make you think or feel? (The 2nd question is not a correlation to the first.)

I see shows like Scottsboro Boys close after a month, while Mama Mia is still open after all these years. We're focusing on the stunts in Spiderman, but do we think about the message?

What do you think? I assume that many of you are either regular theatregoers, current or former theatre students, or just have a great knowledge/appreciation for theatre. Can these people uphold theatre to a certain caliber, or is it up to the tourists and the Average Joe to support this art form.

Do you go to the theatre to be entertained or to learn? Do you go to feel or to think? (The Enlightenment period claimed the term "thought-feeling" [the translation of the word]).

Discuss.

P.S. This isn't an assignment or anything; I'm just really curious as to the opinions of others.

[Taryn]

Theatre does all of the above. Plenty of shows simultaneously educate and entertain, and usually my favorites make me both think and feel. However, I don't think it's an artistic requirement that every show needs to hit all points. There is a place in the artform for fluff, for pure entertainment, etc. The goal, in my mind, is to have all different sorts of shows available to see.

Can these people uphold theatre to a certain caliber, or is it up to the tourists and the Average Joe to support this art form.

At the end of the day, what sells is what's going to stay open. Yes, we can hold theatre to a certain caliber, but that doesn't mean anything if the show doesn't sell seats. Broadway is a business. Should we as theatre-goers expect and demand quality? Yes. And we should do what we can to encourage others to see those shows we find of high quality, but tourists are always going to hold a large sway over what stays open.

[dramamama611]

Entertain or educate? I don't think they are mutually exclusive at any rate. Good theatre should do both, no matter to what extent: 90/10; 50/50 etc. And educate is such a formal word: I want to understand something I don't already, whether it is understanding a different person, society, fact, mind frame, situation.....etc. I also think the word "entertain" is too informal. I want my mind to be engaged and to keep the outside world out for a time.

Feel or think? This, too, is not mutually exclusive. It can come in degrees and either can happen first. I need to be curious, I need to care. This question is one that personally, I could pick one that is more important TO ME. I can enjoy a show that doesn't force me to think as long as I CARE.

Uphold theater to a certain caliber? Not at all. Room for all sorts, for all sorts of people. They can't cater just to me (but wouldnt' that be nice?). While there are shows that I don't enjoy (for a variety of reasons) if they appeal to some, that's good enough for me.

I teach (drama). I bring my kids to NY every year for a weekend. Part of me hopes they like every show they see, after all, it's their trip, their money, their experience. The other part of me hopes for them to critical and not just accept that broadway automatically means its good. Regardless, I want them to know WHY they like or dislike a piece.

[marcblack]

I think you leave out a pivotal point by only mentioning Broadway shows. Broadway is a business, theater is an art-form. That's not to say there can't be art on Broadway. However, like film, television and music, shows that take large creative risks tend not to gain a mainstream audience. There's always exceptions like Next to Normal... But Broadway is a mainstream audience -like a major television network, record label or movie studio. A label usually wouldn't spend millions pushing an indie artist, because it's just a waste of money. That doesn't mean the indie artist isn't good, they just have a limited demographic. Good people were behind The Scottsboro Boys, they took an obvious risk, which amounted to a bad business decision. I personally like shows that entertain and educate, but it really depends on my mood. Most importantly, there is no right answer. Besides government's laws and personal morals, there are no rules in life. Only opinions. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but does not have the right to force it upon others. That's what bothers me when people hale The Scottsboro Boys and trash Spider-Man... you're stifling creativity. It's fine if you express your views respectfully, but so many people are out to ruin Spider-Man. They're doing a HUGE disservice to the Broadway community. Since Broadway is a mainstream audience, you usually need mainstream material to survive. Without Wicked and Mamma Mia, etc., Broadway wouldn't be a sustainable industry. If all those shows fail, Broadway fails. I've digressed, but the point I was trying to make is there's all different shows out there. Pure entertainment, pure thought provoking and a combination of the two. Each has it place in the theatrical realm, but that doesn't automatically mean Broadway.

[trentsketch]

Theater is an art form designed for public entertainment. It can be used as a tool to educate, though it has to entertain on some level to balance the educational content with the expectations of going to the theater. It's a tricky balance and there is no set formula for success or failure. Elisabeth Swados' Runaways ran for over a year in NYC (with the Off-Broadway and Broadway productions) and was designed to give a voice to runaway children, even using the children she interviewed as the cast of the show. It was an eye-opening musical, but also interesting enough as a musical (great score, strong book, good performance, inventive staging) that it worked as entertainment as well. It was just meaningful, purpose-driven entertainment.

I think there is nothing wrong with a show designed just for entertainment if it's done well. If it has a further purpose that doesn't distract from the theater experience, even better.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Education.

[musical_ash_09]

I just recently discovered my love of theater and Broadway and think that it really is a little bit of both. Theater can entertain and educate or it can just educate or entertain. It really depends on what the person wants to take from the show. I've seen shows where I didn't really learn anything new but laughed so hard that I felt like I was a completely changed person. But I've also seen shows that taught me lessons in life and messages that I will carry with me. Shows have also taught me a little bit about myself and theater and left me completely blown away. I'm just starting to experience my love of theater and attempt to understand it.

[luvtheEmcee]

I don't understand why it has to be one or the other.

[musical_ash_09]

I agree Emcee.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Okay, fine. Entertainment.

[AC126748]

I don't understand why it has to be one or the other.

Because people feel the need to codify everything.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Can it be neither? This is giving me a headache.

[fashionguru_23]

To quote Sondheim: "Is it always "or?" Is it never "and?"

[Hest88]

Books: Entertainment or Education? Discuss.

[Gavroche4]

Theatre does both even if there were only productions which only entertain as it isn't the entertainmanet factor which makes a theatre production a theatre production and there should be productions which only entertain, more or less only educate and do both as it is only really this magical place if there is this variation. Personally watch a production because I want to be entertaint, but it is "allowed" to mainly educate me or educate me too.

[darquegk]

This question is so broad and so loaded- if you want to explore the educate/entertain divide, you'd be better focused on a smaller, more independent entity like podcasting, as we are JUST on the cusp of it moving from mostly independent production to being mostly franchised and monetized like TV networks.

[After Eight]

The theatre should respect its audience, first and foremost.

 

[dramamama611]

THAT doesn't even make sense.  

[John Adams]

After Eight said: "The theatre should respect its audience, first and foremost."

You're always one of my favorite contributors, here. If I ever get to NYC, I'd love to see a show w/you, then go for drinks/dessert after to discuss!

But back to topic... My opinion is Entertainment. For me, that's the most inclusive response because I get enjoyment (I'm entertained) when I'm educated in a creative manner. How creatively I'm educated within the context of a production is a delight. I'm entertained by a good debate, also.

A university lecture is Education, but it's not always Entertainment. On the other hand, a comedic production is Entertainment, but doesn't need to/nor may not educate me; still it IS theater.

So.... for my tastes, Entertainment is the most accurate and inclusive choice.

[promisespromises2]

For me personally, ALL of it.

If I really love a show, I generally tend to find books either about the show or about the subject of the show.  For example, loving the show Les Mis led me to actually reading Les Mis by Victor Hugo which led to me learning a **** ton about France and some really cool new words and an author I knew of but never actually read about.

For Hamilton, it made me research our founding fathers so actually see what was true about the Hamilton family, etc.

I tend to go to theatre to find the deeper meaning of humanity, but I have friends who purely go for the entertainment factor and that is 100% okay, too.  

[Mister Matt]

Do you go to the theatre to be entertained or to learn?

To be entertained.  Any education I pick up is a bonus, but I don't buy tickets to a show like I would sign up for a class.  I didn't see 1776 or Hamilton specifically because I wanted to learn more about the American Revolution and Independence.  But that's not to say I didn't learn something new about the subject when seeing them.  And if I see an bad production that either bores me or offends me to the point that I simply leave, I'm less inclined to feel educated (other than learning when to walk out on a show).

Do you go to feel or to think?

It depends on the show.  My initial impulse is to go to feel, but I usually end up thinking, anyway.  Other times, I will see a show specifically to think.

If I only went to the theatre with the intention of education and thinking, I'd be missing out on a lot a great shows.
 

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

I notice that with most theatrical pieces, there's always some overarching theme or topic it's really about. That's true of musicals too. Even the most simplest musical is about something and the creators want to educate about something . . . at least the older ones were.

Look at something entertaining, full of style, and whose production values and performances are what most people take away from seeing it....Dreamgirls. Tear down the pizzaz and what is Dreamgirls' ultimate message? Deena explicitly states it in Act 2 where she tells Curtis his dreams are dangerous, that he doesn't care who gets hurt, and that he'll destroy anyone who gets in the way of him achieving his dreams. It sort goes to the idea from Into the Woods that dreams/wishes come true, but not free. It puts a whole new spin/meaning to the title. It's a pretty simple theme/message, but it's a message nonetheless which makes the show much more than a showcase for Broadway's take on Motown.