Why people assume that classical theatre is ''pretentious'' or ''intellectual'' ?

[sarahtasher]

As someone who is an amateur writer, one thing always struck me. If I mention that I like classical theatre and see it as a model, it's seen as an affectation or being an intellectual. Why theatre is associated with intellectualism (classic theatre) when it was classical Athens Netflix or Elizabethan England SyFy channel ?
<
It was popular culture, enjoyable by common people and elites alike-Sophocles would have ostracised (ZING) and pelted with the said pottery if he had made the equivalent of an art and essay movie. Your Bard is a model for telling a plot in a efficient, not convoluted, manner. Compared to Marvel or Star Wars, or whatever rock your boat, Sophocles or Shakespeare are radically superior in basic storytelling techniques (the point of this thread is that for instance Macbeth is not much more intellectual than A New Hope, but way better written. My point is that classical theatre is not
more intellectual than a Star Wars movie, but does have to convey the same emotion without spaceships, planets, cool costumes, weapons, musical score, sound effects, decors and female actresses…)

[Elegiac]

People are bad at making classical theatre culturally relevant to a present day audience, and there is a small but quite vocal subset of people who use "classical theatre" as a cudgel to attack popular and contemporary culture. Usually for class related reasons.

There's also the fact that there is generally only one group of people who have the time and money to indulge in niche art that isn't viable as a business.

[sarahtasher]

Technically, in 2019, to enjoy the Bard works, in addition of just using BBC World countless high quality productions, any smartphone does the job : they are public domain. (I'm certainly not spitting on popular culture , since I flat out say that Shakespeare is not more intellectual than GOT. It's more intellectual than Michael Bay, sure, but a BBC documentary on the mating rituals of gophers is more intellectual than Michael Bay).

Classical theatre is not irrelevant : in 2019, it's still the go to way for young actors to lean their trade in Europe.

[Elegiac]

Technically, in 2019, to enjoy the Bard works, in addition of just using BBC World countless high quality productions, any smartphone does the job : they are public domain. (I'm certainly not spitting on popular culture , since I flat out say that Shakespeare is not more intellectual than GOT. It's more intellectual than Michael Bay, sure, but a BBC documentary on the mating rituals of gophers is more intellectual than Michael Bay).

Classical theatre is not irrelevant : in 2019, it's still the go to way for young actors to lean their trade in Europe.

Classical theatre is irrelevant in the same way opera is irrelevant; they have been replaced by different media in the popular sphere and remain of niche interest to most people both as a function of, again, people sucking at making these older forms more culturally relevant and also them not being profitable - which is why their presence tends to be greater in areas where public funding of the arts does exist.

I'll also point out that theatrical productions tend to reach far narrower audiences by virtue of being a live production and needing to be shown in a dedicated space, versus things like books, podcasts, films, and video games.

Want to make the theatre more relevant? Make it more accessible.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Because people are morons, Theater is just in my view more entertaining. I think it's also more work for the actors involved.

[sarahtasher]

Classical theatre is irrelevant in the same way opera is irrelevant; they have been replaced by different media in the popular sphere and remain of niche interest to most people both as a function of, again, people sucking at making these older forms more culturally relevant and also them not being profitable - which is why their presence tends to be greater in areas where public funding of the arts does exist.

I'll also point out that theatrical productions tend to reach far narrower audiences by virtue of being a live production and needing to be shown in a dedicated space, versus things like books, podcasts, films, and video games.

Want to make the theatre more relevant? Make it more accessible.

The BBC, the CBC, PBS….all broadcast high quality productions of the Bard.

[Rozz]

As someone has already mentioned, there is an important note of classism and other social issues that caused the stigma. It's the same reason why newer art forms are treated as anti-intellectual, even if they reach the same if not superior heights of fame and recognition.

[Elegiac]

As someone has already mentioned, there is an important note of classism and other social issues that caused the stigma. It's the same reason why newer art forms are treated as anti-intellectual, even if they reach the same if not superior heights of fame and recognition.

:bless:

I'd like to point out that academic/elite skepticism of novel media, especially forms of media that make art more generally accessible, is nothing new. The emergence of the novel in Europe and the criticism it faced as 'low art' is something one sees in early criticism of film, and again these days with video games that are increasingly becoming forms of artistic expression as well as entertainment.

Not saying that theatre and opera aren't wonderful art forms that should be carried forward, but in the same vein as Ancient Greek theatre the limitations of the medium make it inaccessible by its nature, and thus niche.

[Grimbold21]

As someone who is an amateur writer, one thing always struck me. If I mention that I like classical theatre and see it as a model, it's seen as an affectation or being an intellectual. Why theatre is associated with intellectualism (classic theatre) when it was classical Athens Netflix or Elizabethan England SyFy channel ?
<
It was popular culture, enjoyable by common people and elites alike-Sophocles would have ostracised (ZING) and pelted with the said pottery if he had made the equivalent of an art and essay movie. Your Bard is a model for telling a plot in a efficient, not convoluted, manner. Compared to Marvel or Star Wars, or whatever rock your boat, Sophocles or Shakespeare are radically superior in basic storytelling techniques (the point of this thread is that for instance Macbeth is not much more intellectual than A New Hope, but way better written. My point is that classical theatre is not
more intellectual than a Star Wars movie, but does have to convey the same emotion without spaceships, planets, cool costumes, weapons, musical score, sound effects, decors and female actresses…)

Your analysis is incomplete.

It is true that what we hold today as the pinnacle of cultural excellence indeed used to be enjoyed by various social strata. Take Shakespeare for example.

However, somewhere around the 19th century with the gradual economic emancipation of the masses and the migration to urban centers, the "elites" sought to appropriate such works and placed them in equally perceived elite places, conceived by and for themselves.

That is where the notion of these things being high culture likely comes from

[Witchblade77]

because unfortunately, people don't know any better. which is why I'm a big fan of movies like "She's the man" "Ten things i hate about you" "West Side Story" etc. they are literally modernized works of Shakespeare, and can sometimes serve as introduction for the people who think classical theater is stuffy and not for them.

honorable mentions - multiple Akira Kurosawa movies are basically Shakespear in Japan. and "Rent" is " La Boheme"

[eschatological]

Theatre isn't inherently pretentious. But it certainly has a self-selecting audience. While a Broadway play or musical is often on par (cost wise) with a concert or stadium-size comedy special, the audience is much more niche. When I lived in NYC, I had my "Broadway friends," the same people I'd always go with to a play or a musical.

And I do agree with some of the above arguments that classic works can be hard to modernize, and hard to make relevant for modern audiences. But I love to point out an example like Hamilton. Even though it's an original work, it would normally be done in a "classical" style. Hell, there are well regarded plays and works based around the Founding Fathers (cf most of the stuff Paul Giamatti has done). But by making it a rap-styled musical, it expanded past its normal niche audience and engaged society as a wider entity. And frankly speaking, as someone who loves theatre, opera, and even ballet, among me and my friends, we were ecstatic that people were as caught up as we were in something usually considered so esoteric.

That being said, since I moved from NYC, I've not seen much theatre. I think the last play I saw was Mathilda in the West End, the last time I was in London.

[RobertoCarlos]

Because Batmans parents were super rich and went to the theater before they're shot.

So theater is for billionaries only. clearly.

[sarahtasher]

It's too expensive to get tickets to good shows. It became associated with pretentious rich fuckers who just go there because they can afford it.

The plays of the Bard have been in public domain for centuries. In 2019, you don't even need to buy a dirt cheap paperback-it's free and legal to download.

[eschatological]

It's too expensive to get tickets to good shows. It became associated with pretentious rich fuckers who just go there because they can afford it.

Maybe it's too expensive to go to Hamilton. But I don't think a play is gonna run you more, than, say, a Bruce Springsteen concert, and the latter isn't considered pretentious or "only for rich fuckers."

[sarahtasher]

This is exactly why only actors with mediocre talent would perform them, they're free and you only have amateurs doing them. There was a time when you could get tickets for the best shows in town for an affordable price.

I meant you can read them, and they available for free on public TV.

[RobertoCarlos]

I meant you can read them, and they available for free on public TV.

How is watching it on TV the same as going to the event?

[sarahtasher]

How is watching it on TV the same as going to the event?

I'm not the most social of person and always found one is way cheaper than the other.

[RobertoCarlos]

I'm not the most social of person and always found one is way cheaper than the other.

Yeah but plays/music designed to be played live is a totally different experience. How often do you hear about people watching concert dvds

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Its not the cost, or anything - its 100% purely about the fans of that medium looking down on others that it becomes pretentious. I would say its an older form of entertainment so it probably gets the "intellectual" tag more easily.

[Elegiac]

because unfortunately, people don't know any better. which is why I'm a big fan of movies like "She's the man" "Ten things i hate about you" "West Side Story" etc. they are literally modernized works of Shakespeare, and can sometimes serve as introduction for the people who think classical theater is stuffy and not for them.

honorable mentions - multiple Akira Kurosawa movies are basically Shakespear in Japan. and "Rent" is " La Boheme"

If you're trying to make a good case for the cultural relevance of older forms of media maybe it's not the best idea to use Rent of all things. XD\

Seriously, fuck Rent.

- - - Updated - - -

Its not the cost, or anything

Fairly sure it's also a function of cost since most people don't live within driving distance of a theater that does these sorts of production.

Also: theatre requires continuous expenditures while the performance is going on. Films are one and done.