Peter Brook’s “The Empty Space” Chapter 1

Chapter 1 titled “The Deadly Theatre” began with a simple introduction that pleasantly surprised me. Who knew theatre can be split into four parts? According to Brook this is “Deadly” “Holy” “Rough” “Immediate” or a random combination. At first I found Deadly theatre to be a confusing concept in where it applies. In my notes throughout I have Deadly theatre associating with “bad” or “commercial” theatre however upon reading further Deadly theatre applies to theatre which “fails to instruct, elevates. or entertains”.

This explanation thrown a new perspective to think about in theatre aftermath of a show and perplexed me initially. Brook then went into how the audience gets satisfaction intellectually or through shock. I wasn’t too sure how to digest that point as I feel something doesn’t sit right within me regarding that point. It became a little more universal when Brook compares Deadly theatre to a whore who takes your money and has fun with the short time you’ve given it. A crude way to place it but Deadly theatre takes more shape now because of it. How I understood this was it’s a show that takes too much pride in how it is to the craft rather than to the audience. Personally I am all for theatre that doesn’t aim to wow and astound the audience but instead tell a story or make social commentary etc. However when you are a theatre that requires revenue it might be helpful to try and please your audience.

The prime example of Deadly Theatre Brook points to is Shakespeare. Before my confusion could flourish Brook explained it as something that bores an audience which made me realize that everyone else doesn’t have the same adoration/excitement I do when it comes to the bard….unfortunately:(((.

This attitude can be applied to Phillip Connaughton’s “Assisted Solo”. An audience may initially be turned away from the piece as it is interpretative dance. Worries of not being able to relate without a dancing background may restrict people from going or in Shakespeare’s case not having a personal understanding of early modern English.

However to further confuse the works Brook claims there is a need for boredom to be apparent as too much boredom bares the obvious effect whereas a lack of it creates intensity which could cripple the message certain scenes tries to emit.

When i relate to this point I resonate with both “The Mai” and some movement based exercises in class. The Mai for me personally contained too much scenes with emphasis on boredom which relied on dialogue from certain characters to keep it alive. In class I feel that some movement based exercises which can feel like their dragging on forever build up an excitement/anticipation within me that doesn’t exactly connect with the exercise (Prime example being improv related exercises)

I am given a severe mental contrast to the ways of old and newer modern approaches to Shakespearean text later as Brooks on page 11 mentions how new actors want to “Play his verse more realistically, to get it like honest-to-God real speech”. I can see where Brooks is coming from with this point, nowadays just about everyone wants to standout as an actor who has their trademark “spin” on a text to really feel comfortable and convey their character in their own image rather than what the text intends.-Actors want to be more realistic-

I can apply this sort of logic to Jimmy’s Hall which cleverly used its communist values and social commentary which was very much relevant to its setting and even todays society.

Peter funnily enough points that out in a clever way explaining how the text itself doesn’t exactly tell the actor how it was originally brought to life during the time it was written.

In Conclusion Chapter 1 was very thought provoking and introduced brilliant approaches to segmenting theatre.