Rough Theatre

The article on rough theatre that we read for this week was quite brief but it brought up some very good points about formal popular theatre vs. rough theatre. Personally, I am the type of person who is typically drawn to things that are improvised. I have found that even if I am not aware that something is improvised I will be more likely to enjoy it or find it interesting/intriguing. My favorite musical genre is jazz and improvisational rock & roll. I love improvisational music from the likes of John Coltrane and Thelonious Monk all the way to my personal favorite modern-era band, Phish. When it comes to movies and film, I've always been drawn to improvisational comedy like that of my favorite comedy, Anchorman. I used to be an avid painter and thought that was what I was going to do for the rest of my life until I read Andy Warhol's autobiography of the factory and his life during the 1960s. In it he inspired me to convert to film simply because he used film to try to capture authenticity via film. He would turn on the camera, step away, and allow people to just be themselves, to live, to improvise - or he would just point it at something and let that something function as if nothing were filming it (i.e. Empire or Sleep). To me improvisation is living - it is life. Since junior year of high school I've always thought of the process of living life as a very similar process to the way certain jazz or "jam band" songs are performed. It starts out with some kind of structure, whether it be complex or simple, and then it begins to build on that structure with improvisational notes. The improvisation isn't just random notes - they are notes that are reacting to the notes that the others in the band are playing. They are all playing together, having a conversation, reacting to each other, but reacting in context to the original structured piece of music, thus resulting in structured/controlled chaos. The problem with formal theatre to me is that it is way too structured. In a high school theatre production, if someone messes up a line on stage, they normally stutter over their words and repeat the line over or try correcting themselves word for word. The audience most likely does not know your line word for word, so it would be much more natural if they just improvised and applied something that fit the situation in context. Perhaps one of the reasons why actors are so uptight and don't think on their toes to actually act/become the character is because of the formalities of the theatre and dogma of the audience. I understand that a lot of the focus of theatre architecture is behind acoustics and aesthetics. But perhaps the rudimentary components of the rough theatre allows audience and actors to be more relaxed. Perhaps it also allows them to all be more involved in the story and less concerned about formalities of the theatre.