 sj |
||
|
||
BS:Pleasure not enhanced inconvenience considrable
|
|
|
|||||||
|
BS:Pleasure not enhanced inconvenience considrable |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: BS: Pleasure not enhanced inconvenience cons From: MGM·Lion Date: 12 Oct 12 - 07:43 AM "Surprises are foolish things," asserts that fount of wisdom Mr George Knightley in Jane Austen's masterly novel Emma. "The pleasure is not enhanced and the inconvenience is often considerable." As a general truth, this formulation seems to me applicable to other manifestations of misplaced well-meaningness that some would impose on their fellows. As my prime candidate, from the Theatre where I have made quite a lot of my living over the years as a critic, I would nominate that horror-of-horrors, the "Promenade Production" . How on earth is it supposed to appeal to any audience to be milling about in a mob among the actors, or to help the cast to have the spectators packed tight around them staring up their nostrils while they try to form and formulate a character? It caught on, to my recollection, with the National Theatre's adaptation of Lark Rise about 35 years ago, and has never really gone away since ~~ though never, if I have been warned adequately, with my willing assistance. Although perhaps most common in Shakespearean productions, attempted justifications by reference to the Elizabethan groundlings are thoroughly meretricious~~ they didn't mount the stage and mingle with the actors, who would doubtless have had a word or two to say if they had tried! 'Pleasure the very opposite of enhanced and inconvenience invariably considerable' exactly sums up this institution up for me. Have you a candidate for some well-meaning manifestation which fits Mr Knightley's formulation for you? ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pleasure not enhanced inconvenience cons From: Will Fly Date: 12 Oct 12 - 08:16 AM I suppose I would nominate the time-honoured retirement party when the staff gather round the retiring individual, some superior functionary gives a speech, the retiree is supposed to respond and then a present is presented. I made sure I never got such a "do" when I retired (I never attended them myself in my last few years at work), and I've known several ex-colleagues who subsequently eschewed the experience. Nicer to slip away after saying "cheerio" to those whom you liked. I did, however, nip down to the local pub at lunchtime on my last day and ask a few good friends down to join me for a pint - and that was good: informal, friendly, no fuss and a nice memory of working days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pleasure not enhanced inconvenience cons From: Jack Campin Date: 12 Oct 12 - 08:24 AM If you weren't at the dramatization of The Gododdin by Test Department and Bryth Gof in the Glasgow Tramway around 1990, you missed something. Even if it did mean you occasionally got splashed with wet sand while the actors did their fight scenes in the rising water. One of the biggest, loudest pieces of theatre I've ever seen and certainly the messiest by a long way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pleasure not enhanced inconvenience cons From: GUEST,999 Date: 12 Oct 12 - 10:18 AM I could only echo Will Fly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pleasure not enhanced inconvenience cons From: Anne Lister Date: 12 Oct 12 - 05:30 PM I love promenade theatre - started by loving Lark Rise, and the Mysteries at the Cottesloe and most recently had the privilege of watching the National Theatre of Wales perform a stunning adaptation of Coriolanus in an aircraft hanger. Vivid, rivetting, moving - you must have been very unlucky if you didn't enjoy your experience of this kind of theatre! But if we're talking about things we don't enjoy ...a picnic in sand dunes on a windy day has always seemed more masochistic than fun. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pleasure not enhanced inconvenience cons From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 12 Oct 12 - 06:16 PM I certainly would not have enjoyed getting splashed with wet sand, either at the theatre or in any other situation. I don't like 'big' or 'loud'. I hate eating out of doors or camping. That's what houses with dining rooms are for. In fact, being rather old and crotchety, I like my theatre, art, culture, music, sculpture and eating experiences to be civilised, restrained and not startling. Mr Knightley would have suited me admirably. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pleasure not enhanced inconvenience cons From: gnu Date: 12 Oct 12 - 10:13 PM My old man relished his retirement party... not so much The Parting Glass as the Parting Shots. All in good fun, of course... >;-) Eliza... "That's what houses with dining rooms are for." Indeed. How insane is it to invite guests to sit with you and their neighbourhood flies to dine? Disgusting! My excuse these days is that I shall sit indoors with my elderly mother who cannot take the sun due to her poor eyesight. Perhaps a lame excuse but one that allows me to dine without shooing flies away. As for me Mum, her eyesight is her "excuse". She's a "lady" and wouldn't tell others that their idea of dining outdoors is bizarre. After she leaves this earth and supper is served outside I shall say, "Fuck that. I don't wanna eat with the flies." Mum's a lady... me, not so much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pleasure not enhanced inconvenience cons From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Oct 12 - 10:31 PM Hey, man, you should've been at Rolling Thunder's camp in Nevada. Flies EVERYWHERE! They were absolutely inescapable. So you sure didn't worry about them much when you ate meals, other than shooing them momentarily off your food. That works for a couple of seconds. There were probably at least 15,000 flies inside the cook shack on a typical day. Maybe more. And there wasn't a danged thing anyone could do about it, so we got used to it. They were in all the other buildings too. And they were outside too, of course. The only way possible to escape them would have been to eat inside your car, with all the windows closed, AFTER you killed the ones that flew in while you momentarily had the door open. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pleasure not enhanced inconvenience cons From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 13 Oct 12 - 03:51 AM Flies (and wasps) are bad, but what I hate is the wind. (No, not that kind) Sitting there with a draught blowing up your skirt, bread rolls flying off the table. I once had all my lettuce leaves take off into the air at a horrid outdoor barbecue. Meanwhile there's a perfectly good table and chairs indoors, while you're huddled out there like a blooming refugee. I have to ask, WHY? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pleasure not enhanced inconvenience cons From: DMcG Date: 13 Oct 12 - 04:25 AM I would nominate that horror-of-horrors, the "Promenade Production" So much depends on the circumstances. There are lots of plays where it wouldn't work in my view (a variant for ballet could be disasterous!) On the other hand a promenade production of the Mysteries at Canterbury Catheral was definitely enhanced by making the performance somewhat closer to the original experience. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pleasure not enhanced inconvenience cons From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 13 Oct 12 - 04:32 AM LOL! I'm trying to imagine a ballet performed among the audience. All those men's bits in their tights, right in front of your nose! |
