Chapter 3 “The Rough Theatre”

Peter begins the chapter with a similar concept carried over from The Holy Theatre but in relation to architecture. My understanding of this is that a venue for a play is essential for the conveying of certain themes and mood in a plot/narrative.  How I believe this can be rephrased in a more simpler way is that the layout of a hall/stage is subject to specific reasons to the plays plot and context, perhaps this adds a greater layer of legacy and respect for the play itself and not necessarily for the audiences enjoyment.  In page 66 there is a humorous truth to The Rough Theatre itself regarding that if something is crude yet works for the piece then use it, Peters example being “dung is a good fertilizer”. This places a good idea in the readers head of what “The Rough Theatre” comprises of. This only becomes more clear when Peter speaks about style having “leisure” which I first thought to be high class taking a back seat. This isn’t the case whatsoever. What Peter means is making do with the limited resources you have and making the most fun you can out of it. Peter describes it as a revolution of sorts which I can definitely relate to the modern contemporary theatre making do with the small budget it has. I have examples of this already in mind but Peter better amplifies the point; “holler at the trouble makers” “flour used to show faces white with fear” “the exploiting of accidents”. The Rough Theatre to me in this point is something that perhaps translates best with their audience as it doesn’t confirm the high class, snobby expectations often stereotyped with the theatre from an outsider.

On page 68 Peter claims why the Rough Theatre is the popular theatre because of being “anti-authoritarian, anti-traditional, anti-pomp, anti-pretense” I couldn’t help but link this to the actors of the Deadly Theatre who want to change the way Shakespeare is intended to be preformed and their constant need to stand out by filling all the criteria mentioned above.

In conclusion “The Rough Theatre” is a form which takes everything in its stride and is not weary of how it will look in the eyes of its audience. It takes allthe weaknesses and faults that could possibly happen to a show and uses it in it’s favour. Personally I found it to be one of if not the most enjoyable and approachable chapters of “The Empty Space”, especially when compared to the sheer confusion I endured with “The Holy Theatre”.

I will now remain vigilant to shows to see if they fill this criteria of being “The Rough Theatre” (and therefore the popular theatre as aforementioned)