The Rough Theatre

This was a very interesting read. When I read the title of the reading I was immediately taken aback. I asked myself: What the hell is this? I was very impressed with the authors view of the modern theatre. Personally, I feel the author is really in a state of nostalgia. He has that deep longing for a certain period of history that he probably wishes that he could have lived in. I'm talking about the time of the Shakespearean theatre.
While I was reading the article, that was all I could think about. I don't know a lot about William Shakespeare, but I do know that during the performance of his plays, the audience tended to act in way that we today would be considered rude. They often threw objects at the performers and would yell obscenities. Sometimes they would jump onstage and assault the performers. Other than that, I understood what the author was trying to communicate. He was comparing the clean modern theatre to a dirty rough theatre. A theatre that has character and actually talks to the people in a way the modern theatre cannot. The author puts his focus on the architect.
When the architect prepares to design and build a theatre he must be aware of certain set principles; principles set by the author himself. First, the architect must get rid of that nasty element called style. Style is not needed in the rough theatre simply because style does not speak to the people. Another element the architect must adhere to is intuition. The architect cannot build a theatre on a drawn out plan. He must put away his knowledge of engineering, advanced mathematics, physics, and his compass and ruler. Instead, he must build a theatre that would bring people together; a theatre that speaks to the people and not at them.
I often find the author's version of the theatre quite fascinating. So, I would like to add to it. My theatre would be an old cinder block house with a roof that smells of rotting wood. My stage would be the floor that is soaked through by the water coming from the busted pipe below the sink. The air condition would come from the ceiling of the bedroom in which there is a a large hole that resulted from a bolt of lightning. This would also serve as the acoustics. The worn out bed, torn rugs, yellow wallpaper, the wooden bed with only two legs, and the stained bathtub can serve as props in this theatre.The facade of the theatre would feature two beautiful women dressed in togas with staffs in their hands. Christopher Alan Pratt's Rotten Theatre is what we would call it. I can think of some very interesting plays that can be performed here.
Although I think this is a good description of the theatre that the author is writing about, I think the way the author is describing it is very vivid. He uses images such as a card game at a round table, one night stands, swearing, torn sheets, and heavy drinking. The author really knows what makes a good theatre.
I want to try to sum this up a little more about the author's intentions. Basically what the author is trying to say is that the theatre should be able to communicate to real people. Because the audience is what makes the theatre what it is. Perhaps we should go back to those days when audiences let loose among the "players." These types of theatre are here today. The plays of Tyler Perry are often performed in theatres that are not so "stylish" and the audience truly engages in them. The plays are low budget, but they speak to the people. Their almost like what the author describes in the readings. They are full of jokes and gags, exploitations of character misgivings, the songs and dances, the noises and the exaggeration of cross dressing.
We need more theatres like that. Perhaps the architect should have this reading alongside with him when he's designing his theatre. When adding the wall, perhaps he should not to use plaster; cow dung would suffice.