my blog

So...I don't really agree that theatre is necessarily political. I believe that it can be created or interpreted in a way that makes it political, but I don't think that theatre has to be or always is political. I also question Boal's argument that "those who try to separate theater from politics try to lead us into error -- and this is a political attitude." Not taking a political stance on everything, whether in art of in life in general, doesn't make one wrong. And sometimes art is just art. It doesn't always mean something. Maybe Boal will change my mind. We'll see.

I don't understand why Boal is blaming the aristocracy for the introduction of the actor. I don't know the circumstances surrounding Thespis and his decision to step out of the chorus, but I doubt it was because of some plot on behalf of the aristocracy.

I agree with Boal in that I think it's important for an audience to be more than passive observers. An audience should be allowed to participate in a theatrical piece. But I don't fully understand/agree with Boal's view on the dithyrambic song and the aristocracy creating divisions. Boal didn't draw a distinction between ritual and theatre. Even though rituals like the dithyrambic song later evolved into "theatre," I'm not quite sure it was there yet at the point Boal is referencing. So what he's saying about people participating freely doesn't really apply. Maybe he's implying that the aristocracy somehow brought about the evolution of theatre. I view the change in the form/function and introduction of the actor as natural processes in the transformation of ritual to theatre. In my mind, it just happened. SO I'm interested in how Boal will explain the aristocratic involvement in these changes.