Three's Company Blog

 Dan @ FAT CONTENT said...

Brilliant! Nice one team 3. Can't wait to see what else you have in store for us in 2010.

27 January 2010 01:50  

Post a Comment

Post a Comment

Post a Comment

Post a Comment

 Michael Grady-Hall said...

Since Neyire's wonderful performance we have been honoured to have had Bryony Harding perform with us on 13th and Celia Dunk (or Celia What as she told Comedy Trio), a real treat on 14th.
Who knows who it'll be Thursday and Sun!

20 July 2009 19:46  

 Michael Grady-Hall said...

On Thursday we had an old teacher of ours filling Teresa's spot. Jackie Cruise was wonderful as a (french) Miss Claret. And on Sunday, Rob Gibbs was first to volunteer, so Miss Claret and Miss Dumpling had unnervingly deep voices.
Congratulations to both!

29 July 2009 14:37  

Post a Comment

Post a Comment

 Kathleen said...

Hello there,

I can say it was a success and the audience was quite remarkable.
Yes, I was there and able to experience it first hand, when I was, in a way, "volunteered" as one of the Ex-wings. I couldn't refuse and didn't want to either since I went to see the show to grasp what you guys call immediacy or intereactive theatre.
Let me tell you I had a great time, and though I stick by my idea that theatre still has a unique identity (my answer to the post "the future of theatre") in regards to cinema and TV, there is definitely space for "mainstream" regular theatre and some new adventures. We actually need it in art.

I can now say I am hooked. You made it so easy and comfortable to be on stage, that I am sure people will want to go for it, even the most shy.

I have a question though: do you think it is a concept applicable to drama or can it only work with comedy?

Well, when is the next episode?

P.S: by the way, Yaz is quite a champion at having plenty of ex-girlfriends!

Kathleen (Ex-wing 5)

24 March 2009 09:17  

 Tom Crawshaw said...

Kathleen,

So glad you enjoyed the show. Getting people, who would otherwise be nervous of the idea of interaction, to experience how fun theatre can be when you're a part of it is one of our main aims. It's certainly one we plan to take further with our Edinburgh show this year - provisionally titled 'Play The Play'.

We certainly felt this episode was a good indicator of how much people appreciate an opportunity to experience theatre in a different way. And how keen they are to be a part of it. Even if they are sceptical to begin with.

Thanks very much for helping us experiment. We don't have any other episodes planned at this precise moment (what with Edinburgh plans) but there are an intended seven in the 'Adventure Time' series!

This is an idea we are applying to comedy at the moment - as it seems to lend itself very obviously and comedy is an area our company has a lot of experience in. However, we do feel there is much potential for inter-reactive theatre that is mainly serious in tone. Possibly something for a few years down the line...

P.S. That's true - do you know Yaz then?

1 April 2009 12:52  

Post a Comment

Post a Comment

Post a Comment

 Kathleen said...

“England People Very Nice” is stirring at the moment, and it saddens me to see how people get easily offended.
I have read the play and of course, the use of the word “nigger” brings a feeling of uneasiness. And how better to deal with this feeling than laugh? I don’t necessarily say it is the right behaviour, however, it has often been seen that people react this way to counter tension. This word carries so much weight for western cultures, given we were the instigators of slavery, that it makes us feel uncomfortable. Reading it was already quite an experience, making me feel bad for the people who are reminded of a dark past, so I can imagine how it comes across live. But once again, laughter is a way to release nervousness, even more so in theatre where the experience is soon the spot and direct.
Furthermore, the play ridicules everybody at a point, and the English are not spared. They are held responsible for a lot of the latent racism that exists today. And they should not be excused easily, for they were conquerors and as all conquerors, they have forced their supremacy upon others. I know how it is, being myself from a French colony in the South Pacific. And believe me, French from the main land do not welcome French from outside that warmly. However, I don’t actually care that much about it. I care more about how all the people I meet welcome me as an individual than as a nationality and bearer of a specific culture.
So why get so offended by an ironic, sarcastic depiction of the English society? Doesn’t it mean that some people are still not quite comfortable with their past? That they haven’t gotten over it? And what does it say about our future as the most evolved animals of the food chain? If art will have to take into account everyone’s unresolved problems with their past, first, it won’t be possible for authors to create since they will almost always offend someone; second, it will lose its position as catalyst for debate, reflection and change by not being thought-provoking anymore. We don’t go see plays or movies to have them comfort us in our opinions, on the contrary, we expect them to show us a little bit more of who we are.
And that is what this play does. It points out our prejudices, the stereotypes we put on each other, to make us realise that not all is perfect in our world and there is still a lot of work to be done to help the future generations live more in harmony. Not something that we are doing now, definitely. So to me, talking about identities and nationalities goes against building peace, because everybody wants to hold on to their cultures without allowing any space for others. Why are we still fighting in the name of religion, or a feud that started centuries ago and for which we don’t even know the reasons anymore? Why are we still so frightened by each other, by our differences when it could actually help us improve everyone’s position in life? Why are we not still able to listen to each other in a debate, yet we have learnt from the past that talks bring understanding and compromise in a way that fighting never will? Why always more violence, imposing our ideas, restricting others’ freedom?
I am French but mixed, with some French of course, Vietnamese, Arab and Melanesian (the original population of my island). So where do I stand in the fight for identity and culture? Of course, I have been raised as French so that would be it, but shouldn’t I get offended all the time? I just don’t because, to me, belonging to one culture is not interesting. I enjoy getting the best from what each lifestyle has to offer. I am interested in people as individuals with diverse experiences. It is about observing, processing and making concepts, philosophies, your own with respect to others.
The play also demonstrates our lack of compassion for each other, when the first migrants reject the newcomers, forgetting that not too long ago, they were in the same position, going through the same hardship. Again, it is racism, not from the main population, but from minorities to minorities. So why get angry at the truth and create a scapegoat? What do we have to hide as minorities seeking a better future in a new country? Therefore, is it lack of compassion, or is it actually our primitive, territorial side (feature we find in different groups of animals) that prevents us from welcoming and sharing? I am not saying I am an expert at it, far from it. I am just trying to understand and become better at it.

Concerning immediacy in theatre, where do you guys think it could en up in a performance, since during a platform turned into a debate, there was no space for anyone else to express their opinions given one person monopolized the conversation? Do you think it would turn out as a fight of words and swearing amongst the audience, keeping the play from moving forward, or that it could be contained enough as to go on and deliver the author’s thoughts? It would be truly interesting to have the experience.

One more question: don’t you think that if you feel offended by an act or a word, it means you are not completely comfortable with your past, history and who you have become? You can certainly disagree, but being offended is a strong feeling that makes you feel disgusted about others almost to the point of rejection. However, are you rejecting them or some personal issues you haven’t resolved yet, or you can’t bother to deal with just yet, and that are coming back to haunt you through their own perception of who you are?
I sympathize with the people who have been abused by the western governments for their own profits, but you have to overcome this feeling of being a victim to show them you are not what they hold you to be. You are only a victim if you let people consider you as such. And it is a weak position.

Kathleen

18 March 2009 09:00  

Post a Comment

 Anonymous said...

I just read your blog about the future of theatre and felt compelled to express some of my ideas.
Please, bear in mind that my views are from a filmmaker’s point of view, my knowledge of theatre is limited to an audience experience.

Regarding the identity of theatre, I believe the place it holds in history and its impact are a pretty good point to start with. Therefore, some of its identity resides in being the first one as an art form, the origin of cinema, then TV. Maybe not really strong but still enough to make people curious, in my opinion.
However, I disagree with you when you compare news and morning shows with performances of political, philosophical or moral ideas. The former are more a brainwash than an attempt to have their audience reflect on their world and think for themselves. And the immediacy you are talking about is somewhat an illusion since these broadcasts can be re-aired, therefore the audience attention is not as strong as during a performance. Because then, if you don’t listen carefully, you lose some understanding of the story, the plot and what characters go through; a loss you can never get back unless you go back and watch the same play over and over again. It goes the same way with films now we have DVDs. If you miss some part, you just have to wait few months and you have it again.
Besides, there is engagement on the part of the audience: they have to be physically there for the time being, for one, a decision they consciously make. Second, there is a communion that TV could never replace. You will argue it is the same with cinema and you are right, but let’s not forget that the immediacy that theatre offers is more powerful and engaging with the actors being right there, few feet away; whereas in films, this feeling is diminished by the screen. You don’t exchange much, if not at all.
There is also a peculiarity that film and TV will never have a chance to really explore in the fact that the audience has to stretch its imagination to believe that the scene is taking place where it is supposed to be. It is so typical of theatre. In films, every location is shot, every reaction or emotion is shown. And I have to say it is hard to deviate from these rules as it is expected. Following this thought, in theatre we expect to see what we want or are ready to see. In a way, there is no manipulation; a manipulation you will come to operate when giving too much freedom to an audience member in order to have the play end at the point it is supposed to end. Or is it all improvised, like a conversation, with no real point to close it?
I understand this kind of immediacy is appealing and a lot of fun, and I would definitely like to experience it, but where does freedom start and where does it end? Because once again, the performers are the wardens of the play, directing it in a final direction, their direction.
To me, it feels safer to watch, evaluate and appreciate an author’s take on his/her world, free to agree or disagree, like or dislike, and use the concepts in my own way, than knowing by then end that I have been led to say things that maybe are not completely mine or meant. It looks a little bit like politics at this point.
However, I am ready for the challenge and would like to be proven wrong, and even fall in love with the way you envision the future of theatre. I am willing to learn and always eager to discuss new ventures, then experience before rejecting.
Again, bear in mind that these are just thoughts based on my experience of regular theatre-going and a reflection about the whole process of immediacy as you see it.
On the other hand, I am not sure you would like to go back to Shakespeare’s time when you could be hit on stage by a tomato or egg because the audience got bored or thought the play was not to its taste. It could prove quite dangerous these days. That is why they don’t let you inside the auditorium with anything other than plastic cups.
Besides, you have to remember that an audience, either in theatre or film, is a voyeur. Indeed, what we enjoy from time to time is watch the action unfold from a safe place, a place in which we know we can’t get reached or asked for anything. It is an escape from real life into some sort of real life, but a real life that belongs to someone else, to the author, to the actors to a certain extent.
We are looking at ourselves from far away, like behind a veil that protects us. It is the same for films, even more so since we put another screen between the story and us.
I reckon there is space for mainstream theatre and more “avant-garde” theatre, as it is and will always be part of the arts. It is not dying, just as film will not lose to digital.
Artists will not let it happen.

Kathleen

18 March 2009 08:57  

Post a Comment

Post a Comment

Post a Comment

Post a Comment

Post a Comment

Post a Comment

Post a Comment

 Yaz Al-Shaater said...

Yeah everybody come on down - they should be a hoot.

1 August 2007 01:01  

Post a Comment

Post a Comment